Sept. 21/25 - ALIENS & UFO'S : THE STORYSO FAR w/ Josh Rutledge - Spaced Out Radio

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to spaced Out Radio, the after hours radio show
with me, your host, mister Rob G. We're going to
have a fantastic show tonight. We're gonna be talking aliens
and UFOs because the story so far is show shocking
and we've had developments and definitely some good stuff to
talk about. Josh Ruttlers, you'll be here hours one and two. Well,
Steve Stockton tells and told our three guys, let's go.

(00:33):
You're reading space travelers, Welcome home. You've just tuned your
down to spaced Out Radio, the only place where you
can own the night. I am your host, mister Rob G.
Tonight we're broadcasting on our terrestrial affiliates across North America,
plus digitally on digital platforms all around the world. Don't

(00:53):
forget you can access all of our archives absolutely free
YouTube dot com, foba, slash at spaced Out Radio, and
while you're there, please consider hitting that subscribe button. Also,
don't forget to follow us on x and Instagram, at
spaced Out Radio and as based Out Radio Show. Our
website is spacedoutradio dot com, where the options are endless.

(01:15):
You can stay up to date with the Salon Newswire.
You can get to sell some official spaced out slack.
Plus you can rock out to the man you hear
right there, mister Ron bumble Footdal and oh oh so
much more. We're gonna have a fantastic show here tonight.
We have Josh Rutler's joining us here talking aliens and
UFOs because yes, once again, the story so far is shocking.

(01:36):
We are not going to delay any We're jumping right
on into the conversation, bringing Josh Rutler's right on to
the stage. Josh, how you doing, sir? How you been?

Speaker 2 (01:45):
I'm doing fantastic, rob Thanks for having me on. It's been,
like you said, a while, a couple of weeks or so,
maybe ten days something like that. It'd be a great
conversation to have tonight.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
Definitely, definitely, And just when you know, we just talked
a couple months ago about where we were up to
that point, and we had some good things to say,
but there was still a lot of inactivity. But as
you said, since we've talked, there's been some things that
have popped up that are definitely worth talking about. And
the thing I want to start out with is three

(02:18):
eye at Lists. So three iye at Lists, This weird
maybe forty fifty kilometer they don't know, they're unsure size
object coming into the Solar System from interstellar space, faster
than any other object has ever traveled through our Solar System,
which is bananas just on the surface, and then it's

(02:40):
doing weird things. It's not it hasn't been behaving like
a comet, but I guess, you know, closer we get
to October third, I want to say is when it
passes Mars, we should have a great look at it.
What did you think about this when the news broke
Have you been following it and just yeah, let's hear
from you on this.

Speaker 2 (02:59):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's really cool, just the
fact that you know, we're getting yet another kind of
you know, a rocky body. Let's say that's that's entering
our Solar System. I just watched something the other day
on YouTube that you know, kind of broke down some
of the weird things about it, you know, one of
them being that it's really far away from the Sun

(03:23):
at this stage, and yet it's already starting to off gas,
and that off gassing is blowing towards the Sun as
a way as opposed away from the Sun, which is odd,
which you know, can lead you down a whole different
you know, rabbit hole if you will, of speculation of
you know, all different sorts of things. You know, is
this is this a living creature in it and it

(03:45):
off gases, you know, and so that's why it's blowing off.
The other thing that I saw that's really weird is
that it's composed predominantly of CO two as opposed to
I think most of them have usually been you know,
composed of like either iron or hydrogen, and it's like water,
ice and stuff like that, and that's what the off

(04:06):
gassing is. So is there's something about being mostly CO
two and the off gassing somehow goes to the sun.
And then lastly, I'll just throw this in there. The
other thing that kind of makes me think about is
Project cal Mary from Andy Weir. One of the kind
of key elements of that book is that there's some

(04:26):
sort of weird what they call microphage, like this bacteria
that is consuming their sun. And so, you know, it
makes me wonder, like all this stuff that's off gassing
and going towards the sun, is it because it eats
photons or something? I don't know, you know, just it's
it's all kinds of really cool stuff. Whether it actually

(04:47):
be alien in the form of like crafted by extraterrestrial
and sitting here, I don't know. It's hard for me
to speculate on that, but it's still really neat. We've
got this body that we have an opportunity to learn
a whole lot of information about the structure of our
galaxy from as it passes by.

Speaker 1 (05:08):
Very interesting and I guess theoretically you could call it alien,
right because it's not from here. It may not be
an actual Nhi right, but it's definitely something for it.
And here's the thing that just keeps me coming back
to it. And I said this before. It was just
like the Peru mummies, right where everybody came out big story,

(05:28):
everybody laughed it off, blew it off. And I always
was like, you know what, let's just kind of sit
it right here because we just don't know. Let's get
some answers on what it is we're looking at. And
I'm feeling the same way about three on Atlas only
because as the days go on, scientists are still like,
we don't really know. We think, but we really don't know.

(05:50):
And that's that's concerning if you think about what Abby
Lob is saying, and once again Abby Lobe is putting
itself on the line. I feel like once again making
a statement like this because I feel like once it
passes Mars, if they take an image of it and
it's just this big rock never was extraterrestrial intelligence, then

(06:11):
what happens next time Abby Lobe comes out and says,
you know the same thing.

Speaker 2 (06:18):
Yeah, I mean it, Yes, you're right, I mean it's
his credibility is definitely at risk. I think to me,
it's the same as the people who are like, we're
gonna have open contact in twenty twenty six. If that
date comes and goes, it's like the Mayan calendar situation, right,
you know, like, well, well we misinterpreted or whatever. Well,

(06:41):
then your credibility is forever impacted by that misinterpretation.

Speaker 1 (06:47):
And I'll tell you what. I interviewed Steve Bassett recently,
and he kind of gave me that energy a little bit,
you know, because he's been famously known for saying that
we're pretty close to disclosure, which truthfully, anytime he says that,
I kind of agree with them because based on the
steps that we need to get to that disclosure point.

(07:10):
We're literally right there. So theoretically, disclosure is right around
the corner. But if you say it too much then
and it doesn't come to fruition, then you end up
having a little egg on your face.

Speaker 2 (07:23):
Well, and it's I think it's a little interesting too.
You like, right around the corner in the context of
you know, universal time could be anything within the next
hundred years. It could be anything in the next five
hundred years on thousand years. So you know, when I
think about if somebody says disclosures right around the corner,
I'm thinking like within the next year or two. But honestly,

(07:46):
I don't know that we're that close, simply because I
have not seen, unless something's happening behind the scenes, I
have not seen the key holders to the information we're
seeing any type of significant pressure that would lead them
towards saying, you know, you're right, we've got to get

(08:06):
we've got to get ahead of this thing. We've got
to get this information out before we have egg on
our face. So far, I've not seen anything that would
cause them to do so.

Speaker 1 (08:16):
Yeah, and that's well, it's weird you brought that up,
because my perspective on this thing with the three I
at Lis, especially because they don't know what it is.
I beloves giving it a four out of ten on
his scale, so forty percent chance essentially that this is
something intelligent, and so I'm just, you know, I'm looking

(08:39):
at it like if they knew that this was something
intelligent coming in, it might explain some of the other
things that have happened, some of the other things we've
talked about even recently. And we'll end up talking about
the video released at the congressional hearing, but just to
touch on that briefly real quick, I think that plays

(08:59):
a part, and that if you look at everything together,
it feels like that some of the things could be
more more related than not. And it's it's just like
coincidence is coincidence? Really? Could we put coincidence on all

(09:19):
these different things that have happened recently and just say
they're all separate things, they don't line up with each
other at all, Or could we look at some of
the things and then look at three Atlas and say, Okay,
are they trying to get ahead of it because they
released this video which obviously shows that we're at war
with extraterrestrials, So like, are they set in the stage
for something.

Speaker 2 (09:40):
Yeah, you know, and then you have also the popularity
of well, I think it was a the Netflix series
Three Body Problem. Was it on Netflix? I can't remember
what streaming stuff it was on, but the Three Body
Problem show that was based off of the book. You know,
I hope that I'm not giving anything away, but although
say spoiler alert that you know, one of the things

(10:01):
that the Three Body Problem talks about is that is
kind of pending a rival of this other species. And
so to your point, we've even you and I haven't
even talked about it. That really disclosure ultimately lies with
and who has the most control over is the actual
et Galactic Federation whatever it is themselves. And so you know,

(10:24):
it's perhaps that they have set a date to say, hey,
on this date, we're telling the world that we're here,
and you have the opportunity to get in front of it.
If that's the case, I still don't feel like they're
really making great strides to get in front of it.

Speaker 1 (10:43):
No, I can agree with you on that. If this
was that scenario, yeah, they definitely could be doing a
lot more to get in front of it, But there's
definitely something going on, something strange that I just haven't
put my finger on yet. And we'll end up talking
about that little bit more later. But as far as
three iye Atlas goes, one of the things they said

(11:05):
it seemed like it was enveloped in plasma potentially, which
gave it its inner glow. Right, So, when I think
about the plasma and its inner glow, I think of
some of the things we see here in our skies
right now. And Okay, is it is it merely coincidence
that this object that nobody really understands it's coming in

(11:26):
from somewhere we really don't see things coming in from
has characteristics of some of these anomalous things that we're
seeing in our own skies. What's up with that? Have
you thought about that at all?

Speaker 2 (11:39):
I have? In fact, it maybe when I when I
first kind of heard that reference, it made me think
about the cube inside the sphere that a lot of
people report. Yeah, like you say, like it, you know,
is the sphere plasma? Is that you know, who knows
something else just some sort of energetic piece, But yeah,

(11:59):
I mean it does in that regard. It is similar
to things that we see here. But you know, play
Devil's Advocate for a minute. This object, although it originates
outside of our Solar System, is also similar to other
meteors and meteorites that we've tracked over the years. I mean,

(12:20):
it's still it's still an object tumbling through space. It's traveling.
It's traveling fast enough that it won't be it won't
be caught in the surf in the Earth, sorry, the
suns of gravity, so it'll continue to sling shot around
and pass out of the Solar System. But you know,
so from a Devil's Advocate perspective, maybe this is just

(12:42):
a different type of metior that we've never seen before.
We've only really been looking for stuff for like what
the last seventy years as far as meteors and that
kind of stuff are concerned. You know, when we used
to see him before, we would have probably sacrificed some
people to them and whole that they would, you know,
bring about rain or something. So I mean it's as

(13:05):
far as our humanity's awareness of meteors and like the
different types of things, I would say that we're in
our infancy or if you know, if nothing else, we
were just born. Yeah, yeah, So whether or not this
is a normal type of media or it is abnormal.
I don't think we have enough data to be able

(13:26):
to really say.

Speaker 1 (13:28):
I agree with you and really because here's the thing,
anything coming in from space people could immediately jump on
and say whoa, what is that and then go down
that rabbit hole. But I think there's certain things that
are making people feel this way, and it's the fact
that these scientists can't get on board on what this

(13:50):
is and why it's doing what it's doing, and why
it happens to be coming in at this particular angle
which allows it to literally pass by the planets and
be close enough for observation. It's just a lot of
things that make it seem weird but here. But at
the end of the day, and I said this, I'm
okay right now with it being just something we haven't

(14:13):
discovered yet. Just like you said, you know, we are
used to seeing objects that orbit within our Solar system,
asteroids and comets that are in orbit, but we're not
used to seeing things from another total star system. So
it may be that things from other star systems are
just different from or behave differently than the things that

(14:34):
we have here in ours.

Speaker 2 (14:36):
Well, and you know, I was talking to a friend
last night about it. You know, you have to realize
that we I think we most people think about the
Solar System as being kind of a flat disk, and
then all their planets kind of orbited around the Sun
on this kind of flat desk, and then our Solar
system is in the Milky Way, also kind of like
a flat desk, and we're orbited around in the Milky Way.

(14:56):
But in all actuality, when you think about where you
see the Milke the arm of the Milky Way across
the sky, that means Earth is tilted, it's perpendicular to
the disk of the Milky Way. So our Solar system
is actually flying this way through the Milky Way. And
so and as we're moving through the Milky Way, who
knows what additional things we will encounter along our journey.

(15:22):
This may not even be the first time that an
interstellar asteroid has passed through our Solar system. Again, we've
just never been advanced enough to detect that it was
from outside of our Solar System.

Speaker 1 (15:35):
I kind of agree with that. I always point to
the fact, and that's why I say science is not
the cur all, it's not the answer, But it is
a tool that we can use to figure out, you know,
someone to try to answer some of the questions. Because literally,
in the nineties, and I know, if you're old enough,
you remember the nineties like yesterday, right, And they didn't

(15:56):
even really know that there were so many other galaxies
and so they had no clue at that point. And
it's just weird to think about that because I was
pretty much an adult by then, and sciences didn't know
that there were other galaxies and things out there. And
it's like they moved their goal posts often. And so

(16:18):
even in this moment they're saying, it's just a comment
because that's what we're used to seeing coming through the system.
They will eventually have moved the goal post to hey,
guess what, there's actually other things out there. And one
thing you have to consider is is if we already
have anomalous things here, and we know that NHI are

(16:39):
already here visiting, then if you see something strange coming
from out there, you need to be kind of aware
and kind of think through all the paces.

Speaker 2 (16:48):
Yeah, I think at a minimum, it needs to be
a consideration, right, You can't just automatically discount it as
not being that. But I also think there needs to be,
Like we've talked about, there needs to be you need
to hedge your bets a little bit and and say, well, yeah,
it could be this, and it could be this, and
it could be this, and it could be something we've

(17:10):
never even thought about. Maybe it's a space whale or something.
I don't know, but the fact remains. You have to
be open to everything that happened is happening now, and
I like that AVI is pretty much open to that.
You know, in my opinion, a forty percent chance that
it's intelligent life is a is a pretty low calculation
for a scientist to put his name on. You know,

(17:34):
it's basically, you know, he's saying, I think it's this,
but there's a sixty percent chance that it's not if
you look at it that way. So I think, you know,
when you when you realize that, yes, he's saying it's
it's a possibility, that's all he's saying. It's a possibility.
But it's also equally possible that it's just an asteroid

(17:54):
that's tumbling through this section of space that we happen
to be passing through, and so it intersects the sub's
gravity is strong enough to catch it and pull it in,
but it's not strong enough to keep it here.

Speaker 1 (18:08):
Just think, and here's this Why has a double EDZ
sword for Ivy Lobe and why I understand why he
steps out and continues to step out and put his
name on the line, because you got to think right now,
with this object coming in, if Ivy Low doesn't step
out and say what he says, then the only people
really monitoring it are the other astrophysicists, who, first of

(18:31):
all won't even admit that things are in our sky,
right here above us, above our heads. They're still in
the mindset of it takes too long for things to
get here. It just doesn't make sense. I'm sure there's
things out there, but they're not here. So those same
people you probably wouldn't trust with delivering you the information
on what this is, and it would only be them NASA,

(18:54):
who we know has a track record of not saying anything,
and then the government, who I'm sure would be briefed
on whatever the object was. So you got to kind
of appreciate, and I know you do, but I'm just
saying the public out there, Ivlo taking the risk of
stepping out there and just making it part of the conversation.

Speaker 2 (19:11):
Yeah, I mean, in my opinion, obvious of the same
caliber as John Mack was for abductees and contact teas
and experiencers. It's somebody that academia knows about. They're very
much familiar with their work, and so for them to
take a strong stance and even considering the you know,

(19:34):
the WU or the phenomena as a legitimate possibility, even
just to consider it, I think at least puts it
on the radar and the rest of the scientific community.

Speaker 1 (19:47):
And I agree, and I'm a fan of you take
what you know in order to kind of formulate your
thoughts on something you don't know or trying to understand.
And if we understand and that we're currently being visited
by non human intelligence, they had to get here at
some point, they had to come inwards. They had to
the ones that do travel through space, because some of

(20:09):
them probably don't, they do interdimensional things, but the ones
did literally traverse space at some point they were incoming
objects to Earth as well. So with that being said,
you know, you can't just assume that everything coming in
is going to be a rock. You just can't, because
there's other reasons to show you that you should not

(20:31):
feel that way. With that being said, because we have
a couple of minutes here before we go to break,
I do want to get into your thoughts on what
if it was alien technology, because I just like to
hear what you what you think about that. But before
we do that, do you feel like it has been

(20:52):
given a fair shake in the press as far as
the way they've been representing this.

Speaker 2 (20:58):
I don't think so. But I also think that, you know,
our news cycle is completely office rails lately. There's some
new attention grabbing activity that's happening, you know, every twenty minutes,
it seems like, and unfortunately, I think that the vast
majority of the public is just not that interested in

(21:21):
an interstellar asteroid.

Speaker 1 (21:25):
Yeah, with what they should be though, because it.

Speaker 2 (21:27):
Just should be. Yeah, I agree, think.

Speaker 1 (21:29):
About this if this, I mean, which obviously likely is
an asteroid or a comment right, So let's just say
that the only people who are skeptics coming in say
and all, they just believe it's alien. Nope, Nope, I'm
I'm literally in on the boat of it's a comet
or an asteroid. And I just feel like, you know,
a forty kilometer wide object period is insane and should

(21:53):
you know, inspire you to want to see what it
is because you know, that is twice as I think
two or three times the size amount Everest, like, let's
put that into perspective. I believe they said twice the
size something like that. That's huge. That's a huge object
to be traveling through space. It's not.

Speaker 2 (22:13):
I think it's also sorry, go ahead, rob No.

Speaker 1 (22:16):
I was just saying, this is a huge object that
isn't designated to be a planet, you know what I mean.

Speaker 2 (22:21):
Yeah. I think the other thing too, is that we're
just in a different kind of culture. You know, if
you think about when the comets and stuff used to
come through when we were kids, you know, like on
Hell Bop did It's fly by in ninety seven. I mean,
the country was a buzz, but at the time, the
only way to spread the word of help Bop would

(22:43):
have been local news.

Speaker 1 (22:45):
You know.

Speaker 2 (22:45):
Social media wasn't really a thing, like we had America
Online for the people who could have who were you know,
you know, who lived a life of luxury and could
afford to have to have dial up. I mean, I
of my friends, one person had dial up internet with
America online and we would go to his house and
wait thirty five minutes for one song to load. So,

(23:08):
you know, the spread of information right now is so
fast and our attention spans are so small that something
like this just doesn't grab the attention strong enough as
it used to. Plus in the time when hell Bop
and other ones came through, we were still relatively close

(23:28):
to the space race era. But we're pretty far away
from that era now, and I don't know that the
you know that the community or that society would even
support another space race if you know they decided, I mean,
NASA obviously wants to go to the Moon and establish
a colony there.

Speaker 1 (23:46):
Hold that, but hold that thought you could talk about.
Hold that well, we'll get to that thought right after
the break right here with Josh Rutley getting in some
really good stuff Allen's and UFO's. The story so far
it may shock you, don't go anywhere. Will be right
back right after this break on Space Out Radio to
Appter Thats Radio Show with me your host, mister Rob G.

Speaker 3 (24:06):
See you back here in a minute.

Speaker 1 (24:20):
All right, we are clear and cosmic Joe Chronicles. I
am acknowledging you. Lol. You're funny. I knew you were
gonna say something because I was going through the roll
call before the show. I was like, there's Coles with
Joe's name, and it's too late to say it. So
now I'm gonna use the time right now to mention
anyone that I may have missed and cos me Joe,

(24:41):
you are number one, your numeral UNO, So I appreciate
you coming in and joining us tonight and having a
sense of great sense of humor. Also, Thirsty made it
in here. Appreciate you showing on up and let's see
dead Fish she spread you got the kool aid? Okay,

(25:03):
nice love it, love it. Let's see who else snuck
in while we were chatting here at Kurt W seven
five appreciate showing on up here to the show the Andromedon,
I see you out there. Thank you for coming on in.

(25:23):
Who else is showing up here? Tyler four twenty appreciate
showing on up Tyler and Johnny half appreciate showing on

(25:45):
up here. And Candice, you gave a super chat earlier
didn't get a chance. Thank you for that. Thank you
Candace for your awesome support of Space Out Radio. We
do appreciate that as I'm bringing that up here. Awesome stuff,
awesome stuff. Let's see we have I think we might

(26:11):
be current here. I think that might have been. Yep,
that's it. That is it. So do appreciate everybody coming
in and as you can see, Jose Sanchez, hey, thanks
for coming in as well. We're starting the show earlier now, right,
so this is the after hours radio show now starting
at seven pm Pacific, which is ten pm Eastern time.

(26:35):
So the hope there is to get some more East
Coast guests in here for conversations, also for our East
Coast viewers who just feel like it's a little too late.
All right, So I brought it back an hour. I
took this back. I hopped in the time machine. I
took this back in time one hour. And we'll be

(26:58):
doing this going forward just to kind of see how
it feels you guys, let me know you know how
you feel about this earlier time as we try out
a few of these shows, and I think it might
I think it might work out, though we'll see who
writers DG thanks for coming on in. Appreciate you man, Okay,

(27:27):
all right, Kennis loves it, can says Rob. Yes, East Coast. Yeah,
our East Coast brethren and sisters out there, you know,
it's feel bad. We have Sir Brian Bowden come in
who's in New York, and he has to come in
at literally one in way, yeah, one in the morning

(27:47):
Eastern time, in order to do a segment with me.
I don't feel good about that. Uh So we got
an hour earlier, so maybe midnight he can do that,
maybe potentially, or some of our other East Coast guests
who normally feel like, you know, starting a show at
eleven o'clock or starting an interview at eleven o'clock is

(28:07):
too late for them, So hopefully ten o'clock works for them.
And t Bone agrees it does make it a lot
easier for East Coast guests and viewers. So hopefully that's
the case, and we should see we should get some
feedback as we do some more shows, and I'm hoping
that it's a positive outlook on what we're doing. So

(28:32):
let's see. Also, yeah, don't forget if you could take
a moment and look right under the screen if you're
on your mobile device, hit that little thumbs up button,
let us know you like the show. If you're watching
from X, hit the little heart button, share with other friends,
let them know that you like the show, and we
would totally appreciate that. As well as if you're here

(28:54):
for the first time or you're watching this on replay
as the first time viewer, please consider hitting us subscribe button.
It doesn't cost a dime for you to do that,
and we would totally appreciate it. Bno from OZ seventy
five says, smashing time. I like that. That fits. It
might be a thing, smashing time. Guys. Let's take them

(29:16):
on and hit that like button. It's smashing time. Courtesy
of Bento from OZ nineteen seventy five. I like that.
That's awesome, all right, Marie Kay saying I'm here, I
see you, I see you. Marie K. Thank you so
much for coming in and joining in the chat here.

(29:38):
As you'll find out, I'm sure I know your name
is familiar, so I know you've been here before. But
for those who haven't, we have an awesome chat, a
lot of great individuals out there with great knowledge. You'll
enjoy chatting with these individuals. And yeah, we got about
fifteen seconds left when we come back, guys, let's get

(29:58):
ready to go smush that like button, as melwd forty says,
I like it. Here we go. All right, everyone, welcome
back to space Oout Radio app hours radio show. We
are on the back half hour one with our guests

(30:18):
Josh Rutli's talking Aliens and UFOs. Because the story is
so shocking, it really is, and it's really important story
to the humanity and human race. So what you can
do if you miss any of this conversation tonight, you
can how many of art guys that it doesn't cost
a dime absolutely free YouTube dot com, forward slash at

(30:39):
spacevout Radio. We would totally appreciate that. So, Josh, you
were in the middle of talking about you mentioned something
about the Moon as we were going to break, you know.

Speaker 2 (30:49):
Just with NASA and their Artus mission. You know, they
they're wanting to establish a base of operations on the Moon,
have people living there, et cetera. Like, I don't know
if in today's society, if the generations that are represented
across would actually support the expenditure of that type of endeavor.

(31:13):
You know, before when it was the space race, it
was because you know, we had to beat the Russians
there and there was the you know, on on the
other side of the Cold War and all of the
you know, kind of fear and things that were associated
with that. But I don't know that we have that
same driving energy to go to the moon. And so
that's where I think, you know, stuff like just the

(31:37):
public's interest in space stuff, whether it be you know,
three I Atlas or going to the moon or the
next you know, interstellar objects that enters the sources to
more you know, supposedly have heard that we you know,
may have our first signs of an actual planet nine
on the other side of Neptune. You know, even if

(31:58):
that's the case, I just can't imagine it's sticking in
the public news cycle for very long. It just seems
that most of society has lost its appetite for that
kind of stuff.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
Yeah, and you know that you bring up a great
point there. I think that's where pop culture comes into play. Right.
So we have a Steven Spielberg working on a UFO movie,
hopefully Jordan piel is doing a sequel to his movie.
And once we you know, those type of things get
those other people involved in the interest. They're just peaking

(32:32):
the interest on maybe wanting even if it's for a
short time. They walk out into theaters thinking about what
that you know, what a moment like that could be
in if they've never even thought about it before. So
you know, that's kind of where I think we'll have
We'll be able to gain some more interest in space.
And hopefully it's at a time where other things are

(32:53):
also happening, so when they do go look into these things,
they're opened up to all the other currents that are
going on. So hopefully it ends up being like a trick,
you know, a snowball effect. But on one thing that
I did want to mention, and someone mentioned this in
a chat, and I don't know why I didn't bring
it up, but three I atlas. One of the other

(33:15):
weird things about it is that it's apparently coming from
the Sagittarius star system from that direction, and that it's
that's where the wild signal came from. Yeah, from the
same direction. So you got to, I mean with other things,
and that's when I say, when you look at everything
and you set everything together, all the things that are

(33:36):
weird about what's going on with this, and then the
fact that it is also happens to be coming from
out of all the places it could have come from.
It's coming from the actual direction that we received the
wild signal, which we still don't know what it means
or if it's extra terrestrial. I think they try to
explain it to a ways, like explaining it away as
noise from things that we've made, I think is how

(33:58):
they tried to explain it, which I don't know about that,
But this is coming from that direction. This object is
exhibiting characteristics of things that are currently in our skies.
And then on top of that, we have a video
showing that we are that our military or other militaries
I'm unsure who did this, but fired up on a UFO,

(34:20):
which for me shows that potentially there is at least
in that moment the thought process going through their mind
that this object is a threat because it had done
something prior to the video that we saw or of
it was just behaving in a way that they felt
was adversarial. Right, So it makes you think, then are

(34:42):
these other some of these well, they it would have
to mean that these other things, some of the other
things we see in the sky may be exhibiting that
same behavior. And then if this is related to wild signal,
and then maybe some of the things we see in
the sky. Is this the calvary coming in? You know?
Did they call it a calvalry in? Because if you

(35:04):
have a forty nine just think on this side for
a moment. If you had a forty kilometer wide spaceship,
how many inhabitants could you fit on that? That probably
be millions, right.

Speaker 2 (35:15):
It depends on the size of the inhabitant. But yeah,
I mean I you know, if we assume there are
size or smaller, then yeah, probably the other piece I'll
say that, you know, the like the firing on the
UA on the UAP or UFO or donon't call it
is not the first time we've tried to fire on
a UAP, right, We've done it multiple times. It's just

(35:36):
every other time that we've done it, the object quickly
moved away to where it couldn't be impacted by whatever
it was we're shooting at, missile, firing guns, whatever the
case could be. The only difference here is that the
object allowed itself to be struck. And I think that's
an important distinction, because the object allowed itself to be
struck and still remained in flight. To me, it's a flex.

(36:02):
It's saying, hey, every other time, we've moved out of
the way. This time though, we let you guys hit
us and you couldn't do anything with it, so it
maybe just back down a little bit.

Speaker 1 (36:11):
Yeah, yeah, I could see that angle. I could definitely
see that angle. And you know, I've always looked at
the whole crash retrieval thing because the question is always asked, Oh,
they have these super advanced to craft, they travel all
these miles to get here a light years and they
just come here to crash like that doesn't make sense

(36:32):
and it doesn't make sense, right, So that's where you
step too. Okay, are these crash retrievals or are these shootdowns?
And knowing how our military is and how human beings
react to things that they are uncomfortable with or don't
really understand, this is how they we address things. That's
why I say as well, when you see whenever you

(36:54):
see a UFO in the sky, right after that you
see a fighter jet on the scene or a blalicopter,
and a lot of people take that to say, Okay,
that must mean it's government craft because they're being escorted
by these government vehicles. And I don't think that's the case.
I think we're seeing uh craft, you know, military assets

(37:15):
that are being scrambled to the location because of maybe
some underlying thing that they're doing to each other. Right,
they're like, we know they're a threat. Up they popped
up there, scramble jets immediately on the seat.

Speaker 2 (37:29):
The other the other possibility is is that it's I
don't know to use it. It's probably a horrible analogy,
but uh, it's pe delivery guy. Right, you're sitting on
your couch, you're watching TV. Doorbell rings because your pizza
is being delivered. You jump up and you scramble to
the door to get your pizza. It could be something
similar where we don't really know. Let's say the government

(37:52):
doesn't really know when these things are going to pop up,
but when they do, they're here for some reason, like
maybe even a positive reason. Hey, we're gonna turn over
our craft. We got you this cool piece of technology
that we want you to investigate. So we scramble our
stuff to go escort it to a location where it
can drop off that delivery. You know, yes, this may

(38:17):
sound like a glass half empty, half full conversation. You
could go the round of it's all negative and we
scramble our jets in a threat response, but you can
also equally say it's positive and we scramble our jets
and helicopters and an escort response. And so I just think,
just like we were talking about earlier with the whole

(38:39):
three eye atlas, being able to and be open to
considering all possibilities, I think the true the same is
true for you AP. You have to be willing to
consider it as a threat and as a positive. What's
the old saying hope for the best but playing for
the worst, YEP. I think that's the approach that we
have to take. And so when you look at the UAP,

(39:00):
you know, missile shooting, there's a lot of important information
to be gathered by that. First of all, they fired
a hellfire missile, which is not meant for air to
air combat. So that means it required laser lock on.
So somebody the the you know, the the drone had
to keep laser lock on with the craft. That means

(39:21):
that the craft could be locked on with a laser.
What does that tell us about the makeup of the
craft that I think a lot of everybody's focusing on
the fact that it deflect the missile and kept going
but no one's really focusing on the facts of all
the other bits of information that we gathered or obtained

(39:41):
in that one little video clip that could tell us
so much more about UAP.

Speaker 1 (39:47):
Yeah, my my biggest thing. And like I said that,
I think the world or anyone who paid attention to
it was more in awe of and even myself I
thought it was as I was watching it as it
broadcast live. Yeah, I felt that way too. Wow, it
just bounced off the thing. That's crazy. So it's showing
that we can't do anything to it or it, you know,

(40:10):
even if it isn't. The intention is showing the world
that our military can't do anything to it, and that
our skies are not safe at this point and we
don't have control of them. That's what that video showed
on the surface. But then as you go deeper into it,
it also shows that we are conflicting with these things

(40:32):
on some level, and it's like then you have to
think about, well, why are we conflicting with them? Is
because they're the aggressors, and so we're just defending ourselves
or and that's secretly one of the reasons they don't
want to tell the story is because we're in an
active war with these things, and they don't want to
bring that out. You know, the reason why we're at

(40:53):
war with them, that is, you know, something to be
concerned about. Also the fact that people say there's other
species out there. So this is where like that skywatcher
map comes in handy, where we can take these categories
of shapes of craft that we've seen in our skies
that we know are here, and then figure out which

(41:13):
ones are the ones that the government is in conflict with,
because yeah, there's likely some that they aren't and are
the ones that are the benevolent ones? But then which
one of these should we be really watching out for?
Which ones did you guys have to fire on?

Speaker 2 (41:29):
Yeah? And I think it's also really interesting too that
all the analysis that I've seen from various people across
YouTube all assumes that it's a physical object. But when
I watched the video, the impression that I get is
that it's more like liquid or plasma even, and that
the objects that broke off from the brack of it,

(41:51):
from the back of it were more like droplets, if
you will, and then they just kind of got caught
in the field of the object and continued forward, you know,
there's another opportunity for us to really evaluate how we
perceive these things. You know, you mentioned something while ago
about our skies. We are not in control of our
skies and they are not safe. Why do we humans

(42:16):
need to control the entire sky?

Speaker 1 (42:18):
Right?

Speaker 2 (42:20):
So right, it's not ours right, We don't own the sky.
No one can own the sky, So why do we
need why do we feel like we need to control it? Also,
since you brought up Bobby with Free Eye Atlas, I
don't know if you read Abby Loeb's medium article about
that video, but his conclusion or his thoughts is that

(42:41):
it's a hoothy drone, how it was launched in the area.
But to me, the behavior is nothing like a drone.
I've never seen a drone get hit by a hellfire
missile and just break up but keep going.

Speaker 1 (42:53):
So that was so crazy to me that that the
same guy who says is saying that three Eye at
List is alien tech just turned around and says the
UFO video is likely some prosaic, explainable sort of drunk. Yeah,
it's strange. When I heard that, I was like, really,
that's that's your take. But here's the thing with that

(43:15):
we know, you know, as far as us in the
community and other researchers know that that thing was something
we've seen before. And you're right, it could be just
a plasma ball. I've thought of that. But I've also
thought about plasma balls and orbs and are they actually
just you know, not material, And I feel like they

(43:36):
are material. But maybe the orb maybe is like a
protective thing and there's something inside the nucleus or I
don't know. But here's another thing. Right, when you talked
about the craft breaking up and when you thought plasma,
I thought that too, But then I also thought liquid
metal like the terminator, right, So what if it's made

(43:59):
up of some sort of liquid metal that's and that
would explain shape shifting, right, that would explain the ability
to do that, and why these things at some time
appear to be metallic because they are. And uh, but
it's just some sort of liquid metal plasma sort of
concoction that we're looking at.

Speaker 2 (44:17):
I think. Bottom line, like I said, it's an opportunity
for us to really think outside of the box and
not just assume that it was a hell fire missile
fired at a solid object that then broke up and
fell to the ground and we perceive it falling to
the ground as forward flight. That's that's pretty much the
summation of the all the arguments that I've heard for

(44:40):
you know, that video not being UAP. But you know,
like I said, maybe it requires us to think outside
the box too. You know, what if the things that
we would not expect, like you said, liquid metal, Maybe
maybe it's a hard object inside of a casing of
liquid metal. Maybe maybe it's propulsion is somehow dependent upon

(45:04):
liquid metal, like you know, gallium or what's the other one, mercury, mercury.

Speaker 1 (45:10):
You know, in some way.

Speaker 2 (45:11):
So you know, just that there's too many there's too
many possibilities. And I think that any anyone who claims
to be a scientist who watches that video and so
quickly comes to the conclusion that it's probably just a
prosaic drone or a balloon that was shot down, should
not call themselves a scientist.

Speaker 1 (45:31):
Well see, then that says that maybe we should be
listened to ivy lobes and the three aalysis as a
trust rue. But here's the day. You make your bed,
you have to lay in it, and you know, at
the end of the day, I hope Ivy Lobe knows
what he's doing by you know, if if I were,
I don't know if I come out and make a

(45:52):
statement on that video, right, especially if I know how
it would be perceived in the public. Is it directly
conflicting this big story that I'm trying to sell to
the world. I don't know that that's the best choice
to make a statement on that. You probably just kept
that to yourself.

Speaker 2 (46:10):
I think it's also like, and I talked a little
bit about this when I was doing the UFO report
on Dave Show a couple of days ago. The issue
is that a lot of these folks, like Abby lob
and Nil de Grasse Tyson and all these guys, they
are two things. They are a spokesperson for science, but
then they're also individuals, and we as the public, though

(46:34):
we don't separate the two no matter what they say,
we perceived as a spokesperson from science making this statement.
So Abby Loeb's medium article might have been his personal
opinion about the drone shooting, but because he is also
professionally making a statement about three I Atlas, we didn't.

(46:57):
We combined the two together. We said, this is Aviy
Love's professional statement. Around the drone as well as his
professional statement around three Eye Outlands. But unfortunately, that's the
thing about these folks is they have to learn that
this is the world we live in and if they
want to be in the spotlight in relationship to this topic,
you know, and take the stance that they do, then

(47:19):
they have to make it very clear when they make
conflicting comments about other phenomena that this is their personal opinion,
that they've not done a lot of research into it,
or whatever the case may be, to try to distance
those personal comments from the professional ones.

Speaker 1 (47:35):
I can agree with that. I can definitely agree with that.
When when we look at you know, I think October
second or third is when we are supposed to get
the closes look at three Iye Atlas. Obviously we don't
have rovers on Mars. They will send us the pictures Nasadas.
So do what is your how much faith do you

(47:55):
put in the fact that NASA is just going to
give us the genuine photo of three Eye Outlysts as
it passes You think we get the un edited, unairbrushed
version of three Eye Atlas as it passes Mars.

Speaker 4 (48:10):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (48:11):
I think I would say, and this is gonna sound
very conspiracy theorist of me, But I would say, we
get the real photo if it's prosaic, and we get
the airbrushed photo if it's not. I can agree, which
unfortunately means that regardless of the photo we receive, we

(48:32):
have to look at it with some level of skepticism.

Speaker 1 (48:37):
Ah sad, And that's ah, that's the frustrating part when
you have gatekeepers like that, Like they're the only ones
who have access to the cameras, they get to choose
what you see and don't see, just like the whole
idea that they're on Mars. Cameras are just open to
you on the NASA website and you're seeing everything that

(48:58):
they take in, don't think. So there's definitely, you know,
not an in the International Space Station as well. They're
trying to give you the image of being transparent when
it comes to what they're doing out there, but we
know for based on other situations, that that is not
the case.

Speaker 2 (49:17):
I mean, I've been bored before, had just gone to
the International Space Station live stream. We'd just be watching
stuff and I start to see something weird out of
the corner of mine. All of a sudden, the feed
cuts off and it's like sorry, technical difficulties. Like it
just seems rather coincidental that that's the case. What's really
interesting too is I watched there's a YouTube channel that

(49:39):
my kids love and it's called Due Perfect, and it's
these grounds they do just crazy sports related stuff. Well,
one of them took an opportunity to go on a
SpaceX rocket, so they went up into space and they
were filming from within the capsule of their of their launch,
and they caught a UFO on their on their filming,

(50:01):
so that here's here's the channel that's not related to
UFO whatsoever, And they caught one in space. It goes up,
it stops, and then it comes back around. Space debris
doesn't do that. It could have only been an intelligent,
you know, built design flown craft. So I grabbed it
and I put it on my YouTube channel, and I

(50:22):
think it's got like, you know, ten views or something,
because nobody really, you know, ultimately cares. But I just
thought it's just another idea though that I'm sure this
stuff is caught by the International Space Station camera and
every other camera that looks down at the Earth from space,
and they get scrubbed.

Speaker 1 (50:38):
Out to the point there we had. It was the
lady's name, Donna. I can't remember her last name, but
she testified in the Disclosure project, the original one that
Steve Greer put on back in two thousand and one,
and she talked about she was like a contractor with

(50:58):
NASA to work near the photo the photo department said
she had walked across the hallway and went in there
as someone was editing a photo that still had the
thing in the image, and she was asking what it
was and he kind of told her, you know, essentially
it was something anomalous and continue to air brush it out.

(51:21):
So we know that that happens. And at the same
time the Internet, it wasn't the intern out Space Station.
This time it was I believe the Shuttle mission, the
STS seventy five I think, which is the one where
it shows the view of Earth and then an obvious
UFO or anomalous object coming across the screen and then

(51:45):
it just stops and darts back the other way as
a projectile, what appears to be a projectile comes from
Earth up through the atmosphere and out in the space.
So if that isn't you know, proof that that we
have something going on, and that NASA obviously sees that
and knows about those things that are happening out there.

(52:07):
It is one of the things that makes people not
like NASA and not trust him even though, which we'll
get to in the next half hour. They came out
and made a big announcement and we'll end up talking
about that as well. You have anything after that, We
got about a minute left.

Speaker 2 (52:23):
Yeah, So I don't know if you've heard the name
Ken Johnson. He was a astronaut trainee during the Apollo program.
He never actually went into space, but where he was
ultimately placed was in the photo route for all the
photographs that came back from the Apollo missions. And he
has a book out. I had the opportunity to interview

(52:46):
him a few years ago for my other podcast, and
he has a book out called Ken's Moon where he
talks about all these Moon photos that show structures and
craft on the Moon that he was required to alter
to remove them from the photos that were ultimately released
to the public.

Speaker 1 (53:07):
Wow, that is huge, and you know that that kind
of goes into the did we even really go to
the Moon? Did we ever set foot on the Moon?
We probably got closed so we had something out there.
I think that was able to photograph the Moon or
like did reconnaissance on previous missions, but the actual human
beings knowing there is something to debate, and there's an

(53:29):
argument for both sides. I actually did a show on
it was surprised how solid each argument was, on each size,
solid argument saying that we went there's a very solid
argument saying that we never actually stepped foot on the planet.
But we're gonna get ready to go into the break
right here at the top of the hour, having fun
and getting real good information with Josh Rutlers here Elliot's

(53:50):
the UFOs because the story is so shocking. So you
back here in a minute. Conversations that moved the need.

Speaker 5 (53:56):
Conversations that moved the need of listening to After Hours
with mister rob G on the only place where you
can own the night, Spaced Out Radio. You've tuned your
dial to the right frequency.

Speaker 1 (54:17):
All right, we're clear, see you in five minutes, Josh,
All right, all.

Speaker 6 (54:20):
Right, flash.

Speaker 1 (56:03):
Out, fine, all right, everybody, welcome back to face Out Radio,

(59:14):
the after hours radio show with me and your host
mister robb G. We're in our number two bringing Josh
Rutli's back on stages, our guests. Here, we have about
thirty seconds before we come back from break. Guys, once again,
this is a great time to take a moment. Look
right under the screen, hit that like button. I also

(59:34):
share this with friends. Let's try to get the likes
over one hundred tonight before the end of the show
is try to do that over one hundred likes. Let's
shoot for that or get as close as we can.
We'd appreciate that. And we're getting ready to come back here, guys.
Five seconds here we go.

Speaker 7 (59:57):
All right, everyone, Welcome back spaced Out Radio after our's
radio show, after our number two back with Josh Rutledge
talking Aliens in UFOs because the story is so shocking.

Speaker 1 (01:00:09):
As far if you missed Indian the conversation, which has
been awesome proving archive it's free YouTube dot com, phobuslash
its face out Radio and catch up on whatever you
mayn miss. As we get right back into tonight's show,
let's talk about the latest congressional hearings. Josh, what did

(01:00:31):
you think about those? What were your thoughts on what
you saw?

Speaker 2 (01:00:36):
I mean, I think that they were good in the
in the in the way of keeping the topic in
the public space. You know, I think you're hearing every
you know, uh, probably four to six months is to
be expected to keep this topic kind of live in

(01:00:59):
the you know, public interest space. I thought, you know,
having George and app is kind of really being the
center of the panel was an interesting choice. But I mean,
he does have a lot of information, you know that
he's collected people he's talked to over the years. In

(01:01:20):
assuming journalistic integrity, you know, you could you could make
the statement that maybe that makes him equal to a
a trusted source of information on the topic. I thought
the other panelists were great. I love that we had
an active duty individual on the panel. It's the first

(01:01:43):
time we've ever had that. And I also love that
I don't love that the things happened to Borland, but
I love that he was able to come on and
talk about the holes in the Arrow process and how
it's really you know, at least in its early days,

(01:02:04):
was more of a mockery of what it was intended
to be. And maybe now with the new the new
guy that's that's over it was it Kazlowski, maybe now
it's actually doing what it was intended to do. I mean,
based on the interview that I saw with Kazloki and
Kazlowski and Nilda grass Tyson, it does seem that that's

(01:02:24):
the case. So, you know, I think maybe it was
more more or less like a I consider it like
a check in. You know, how are things going? You
know this, this is still important to us. We're gonna
keep trying to move the needle. But I don't know
that we'd really got anything out of it that was

(01:02:45):
groundbreaking that we didn't other than the video of it
of them being shot at. I think most of it
was for people in the community. It was probably all
information we already knew. But again it's my opinion that
the hearings are not for us. They're for the people
who are not currently willing to consider the possibilities. So

(01:03:07):
for them, they probably learned a lot of information that
they've never heard before.

Speaker 1 (01:03:11):
See that's why we get along, man, We think a
lot alike. Because that's exactly how I walked away from it,
And I actually said that during the show. It said
that these hearings weren't for us. They weren't we all
we know all this information they had these and the
and George Knapp being there, which was an important part

(01:03:32):
of getting the information to that community. That isn't us uh.
He was a historian on in a intellect, on on
the topics the important parts of the phenomena that people
should know. So and someone said to me when I
made that statement, it was like, you know, we're in

(01:03:54):
a situation where this hearing, you know, will just kind
of go by the wayside, and those people outside of
our community won't even pay attention to the hearing. And
I was like, well, what it really was was George
Knapp and how many sound bites could you have clipped
from his testimony in that hearing? And that's the stuff
that's going to get to the national news outlets when

(01:04:16):
they talk about the hearing, which entail goes to the
people who are just coming around to seeing this as
a thing. They're like, Oh, George Napp is just being
so concise with what he's saying, and he knows the
things that he is supposed to say. And I think
that was the wind for us, is having someone on
the panel that could speak to the phenomena in the

(01:04:37):
way that George Napp did. I mean, he did a
beautiful job in taking advantage of the moment because he
may not have this moment again. He had that moment
in front of Congress, in front of the world on record,
to be able to break down the history and the
reasons why we know that these things are being hidden
from us, and I think it was just so effective.

(01:05:00):
I went into the hearing, and I tell everybody every
time such an expectations low and you won't be disappointed
walking away from it. There should be a silver lining.
I still didn't expect anything really really groundbreaking to come out,
but I was pleasantly surprised to see the video get released,
which was mind blowing in that moment, and then George

(01:05:20):
NAP's testimony, those were the chef kiss for me when
it came to the hearing.

Speaker 2 (01:05:28):
Yeah, I would say that the panel, or rather the
congressional leaders were also really interested in seemed like how
George Knapp got information out of Russia, Like, you know,
several of them circled back to how that happened. You know,
it seemed like he explained how it happened like four
or five times, which almost made me feel like either

(01:05:50):
they weren't listening or they were fishing for some other
piece of information to get into the Congressional record that
you know, George had not previously stated.

Speaker 1 (01:06:03):
So outline that again.

Speaker 2 (01:06:07):
So you know, Napp got a lot of information from
Russia on their UAP investigation and crash retriever program, and
he entered all of that into the record in that hearing,
and he said, you know, he had provided it to
like Robert Bigelow and Robert Bigelow's group of folks for

(01:06:30):
them to translate from Russian to English, and they had
said that this all seems credible, and so the English
translation was entered into the record as a part of
that hearing. So, like I said, every single time a
Congressional member was allowed to speak, almost always their leading

(01:06:50):
question for George Knapp was how he got the information
out of Russia. The fact that George continued to kind
of give the same explanation to me felt like either
A they weren't listening to his responses when he gave
them to other members, or B they were fishing for
some other piece of information that George had not yet disclosed.

Speaker 1 (01:07:14):
Yeah, I know what you mean. That part of the hearing,
it kind of felt like they were trying to test
his source and kind of almost discredit him in the moment,
I kind of felt like that's what they were doing
to him when they kind of were trying to pin
him to like who, like he got the documents, Like where?
Why is that important?

Speaker 2 (01:07:34):
Who?

Speaker 1 (01:07:35):
What are you gonna be? You're not gonna be able
to subpoena the KGB affiliate that gave him the records, right,
So why is it important to ask that question? So
that was weird to me during the hearing. But then
also to speak to as you were talking, I wanted
to also touch on the thing you were talking about
with Arrow and the whole Kaslaski thing, and maybe he'll

(01:07:55):
be transparent within you know, his role at Arrow. He's
been there I think for a year now, and the
most transparent thing I think for him to do would
be to, if he was being on our side about this,
would be to release the files, right, release what the
work that they've done to debunk the all the videos

(01:08:18):
that they've debunked so far. They came out and they
put them on their website and said, hey, we put
this in a in a category that says these cases
have been closed. And it was like, okay, well, where
how did you get to that conclusion? And why isn't
that being released because we would need to know what
steps you took to come to the conclusion that was
prosaic explanation. So hope you would hope because Lawski would

(01:08:42):
be the one to step in and say, yeah, here's
the work, here's how we came to that conclusion. That
hasn't happened yet, and really, you know, the message is
still as George said in the congressional hearing, people still
don't want to go to Aerow even though they got
this new guy in there. So I think it's over
for Arrow as far as being you know, the outlet
to be trusted like that's out the window at this point.

Speaker 2 (01:09:06):
So about a month ago, uh Kaselowski was on Neil
de grasse Tyson's podcast called Star Talk, and he gave
us some really interesting information in that interview. Uh So,
one of the things he said was only that two
percent of the cases they've investigated so far are unknown.

(01:09:27):
So I don't know what that's two percent of. If
it's two percent of one thousand, you know, what is
that twenty cases? If it's two percent of one hundred thousand,
that's two thousand cases. That's pretty significant. So not knowing
the numbers right, it's hard to say. The other thing
he said is fifty around fifty five percent of the

(01:09:47):
cases are not closed, but they are also not solved.
They're basically in a limbo state where they don't have
enough information or data to be able to definitively say
it's whatever it is, and so they're still open. Then
that leaves whatever the difference is, So fifty five or
plus two fifty seven's like, what is that thirty like

(01:10:08):
thirty three percent or something like that or forty three
percent in cases then are closed as solved. So Neil
followed that up with, well, how do you know are
you going to release that to the scientific community so
that we can use that information? And he said, there,
this is Kozlowsky. He said, they're in the process of
figuring out how to desensitize the videos or images so

(01:10:31):
that it removes any chance of our adversaries being able
to know what system was used to catch the UAP,
and then they release it. And I've got to say,
you know, from a from a from a national security perspective,
that makes sense. You don't want to tip your hand
as to what centers or or technology that you have

(01:10:52):
that could be used to detect, you know, a missile
launch or a drone launch from you know, an aircraft
carrier in the middle of the Baltic Sea, but also
happens to be able to catch you ap.

Speaker 1 (01:11:05):
Yes, yes, I agree with you on that, and I
actually addressed that of a couple of weeks a few
weeks ago, a couple weeks ago. So sources and methods
have always been the thing that they want to protect
and the reason why they tiptoe around releasing things. And
it's understandable, as you just said, But then it doesn't
make sense that they released a video, a drone video

(01:11:26):
showing them firing. They would never show that, right, sources
and methods. Once again, it's in Yemen as well, so
it's a foreign exercise and who knows what it was
connected directly to. But you kind of showed sources and
methods in that video. You showed the reasons that you
gave for not wanting to release videos like this has

(01:11:49):
been thrown out the window with this video release. So
it's like, okay, yes, which one is it? Do you
want to show us that you are in conflict with
these things and that you fired specific a hellfire missile.
All this information comes out with the release of the video,
But at the same time, we don't want to do
this because for sources and methods make it makes sense.

Speaker 2 (01:12:10):
Well, So a couple of things that I'll touch on there.
Number One, the video that was released in Congress was
not released by Aero, right, it was a member of Congress.
Number Two, if you actually pay attention to the video,
it's a video of a video. You can see that
they're filming a video that's on a screen. So somebody

(01:12:30):
whipped out their smartphone and took a video of someone
else playing a video on a screen. So I'm not
entirely sure of the legality of bringing that video to light.

Speaker 1 (01:12:43):
Yeah, I agree, and that's the reason why they haven't
confirmed it yet the DD. But also most videos that
we've seen so far have been screen recordings that have
been come out that way. But you have to ask yourself,
as a congressional member, as a member of the government,
who would also believe in protecting sources and methods. As

(01:13:07):
they said in hearings, you would think that you would
probably have maybe not shown that part of the video
because and I point out that there's you could have
chopped off the first part just showing this anomalist thing
going across the water. That's how all the other videos are.
So you could have simply done that in this instance
and not shown that part, but you showed the part,

(01:13:29):
and then you also said what type of drones they
were and what type of weapons were fired on this thing?
So I'm just like just like, well, what's going on here?
And that's why you have to look at other things
that happened within this timeframe. That shootdown, as you said,
that isn't the first time they've been doing this, and
so you got to ask yourself. It opens up the

(01:13:50):
question have they been doing this since Roswell? Is Roswell
a shootdown? And then anything else that has fallen from
that point all the way up to this video. It
just opens up Pandora's box to now we know that
you for sure that you've had conflict, So how many
other times have you had conflict? Are these all shootdowns?

(01:14:11):
Are they are none of these crashes? Right? Because the
crash thing still doesn't hold a lot of water. When
you talk about the skeptics that say they traveled all
this time to get here and then decide to crash. Yeah,
it doesn't make sense that they would do that and
that would happen, And it's you know, with the video,
it's just more pointing to the fact that maybe we

(01:14:32):
are the ones bringing these things down. It's just funny
that they released that video with that being shown at
the hearing.

Speaker 2 (01:14:39):
Yeah. The other I agree. The other possibility is is
that it's a misdirection so that we'll spend the next
three months talking about the validity of that video and
not talking about some key piece of testimony that was
given in the hearing.

Speaker 8 (01:15:00):
Mmm.

Speaker 1 (01:15:01):
I can. I can understand that now the whole you know,
because if you go down the false flag lane, then
a lot of these things can kind of tie into that.
So a lot of people say it was part of
the false flag name that career has been talking about
this whole time, and I just can't buy into it
because I just don't see why they would confirm UFOs

(01:15:24):
in order to do conduct a false flag operation. Doesn't
just doesn't make sense. So in that case, yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (01:15:31):
Yeah, I was just gonna say. The false flag piece
for me is also a non starter, simply because I
don't think humanity has done some amazing things, but I
don't think we have the technical, technological or knowledge ability

(01:15:52):
to reverse engineer any craft. You know, if we find
one and it's still works, you know, maybe it's got
some scratches and the interior is a little scuffed up
and it smells like cat urine. You know, we could
probably still make it work, Like we could probably figure
out how to buzz it around it, you know, at
like you know, a level one speed. But the ability

(01:16:16):
for us to be able to reverse engineer a craft
like that, you know that seemingly runs on some form
of propulsion that we have not even begun to understand, right,
I just think that gives humanity too much credibility.

Speaker 1 (01:16:35):
Yeah, I'm totally with you on that. And I felt
I keep saying controversially, I guess to some people, because
some people just insist on the fact that we reverse engineered,
and I'm just like, dude, the evidence isn't there, man,
there just isn't. What do you have? And even and
I did say this on my other show on my
channel earlier today they just announced this Lockeyed skunk Works

(01:16:58):
released the new drone or announced that new drone, and
it just I went into saying, how it's still the
same design language as everything else that's been released going
back to SR seventy one, So there's nothing new about
you know, there's probably some special things about it, but
as far as propulsion goes and the method of it

(01:17:19):
staying in afloat in the air, it's still lift wings
in lyft and then combustion and some sort of some
shooting out the back to make you go forward. So
it's like, where is there? Where has there ever been
proof that we have reverse engineered anything? Where Where is it?

Speaker 2 (01:17:38):
Vel Crow?

Speaker 1 (01:17:39):
It's is Velcrow and fiber optics apparently, fiber optics apparently,
and it's just here. Here's the reason why I just
didn't want to say this real quick. It doesn't make
sense because they this whatever craft has been created in
a whole nother star system with different elements and materials
and methods of manufacturing that we just don't have here.

(01:18:03):
There's it's very unlikely that we have the materials here
on Earth to put together to read versus engineer one
of those that just yeah, puts it to bed right there.

Speaker 2 (01:18:14):
I mean, let's let's assume for a moment that we
could figure out the propulsion of one of the craft.
Let's say we could. You know, we couldn't, We couldn't
re manufacture one, but we could figure out how it
works for propulsion. Let's just say that we would. We
would build our version, and we would put that propulsion

(01:18:37):
system in it, and then the very next thing we
would do is use it in the arena of war.
Every major technological break breakthrough was first deployed on the battlefield,
and that's what we would do. We would claim battlefield superiority.

(01:19:01):
And you know, to think that, you know, the argument
that I've usually heard that's against that would be like, well,
they don't want the adversaries to know they have it, Like, no,
they do, because it would be the ultimate deterrent. You know,
the only thing that the adversary would be able to
compete with it would be would be nuclear weapons, and

(01:19:22):
maybe that would even be applicable based on the propulsion.
So it's I think we would use it to that end.
We would at a minimum paraded around. Even if all
we could do is flying around, we would still do
that just to flex and show our battlefield superiority. So

(01:19:43):
I do not think we have anything. I don't think
we've reversed and engineered anything. I think we have captured
stuff and we're trying to figure it out. And I
also think that the psionics team that is with Skywatcher,
in my opinion, they they are a part of a
government program to develop consciousness pilots because I think a

(01:20:06):
lot of these craft require a high level of consciousness engagement,
and so they're using them, just like they did in
the CIA in the seventies for remote viewing and such,
working to develop are We're working to take pilots that
know and understand how craft fly and develop their consciousness
abilities to be able to control those craft.

Speaker 1 (01:20:28):
Yeah, that reminds me of that District nine I was
talking about on my show earlier today, where the Aliens
had these weapons and humans couldn't fire them, they couldn't
figure out how to get them to work, and it
required interaction, physical interaction with the actual being in order
for it to work. Otherwise it was useless. And I

(01:20:51):
think that's kind of what we have going on here.
And yeah, maybe consciousness is what controls the craft, you know,
has been talked about a lot. It would make sense
that they would put together a team to try to
the best people to try to figure that out. That
would make sense. Yeah, and I'm just with you. And
just like I always say the being rich, we have

(01:21:13):
the tech, take eat home. I keep telling people that
that doesn't mean that we reverse engineered anything. It just
means that we have the craft. And we know that
they do because Lockheed Skunkworks is the rumored facility where
the Roswell records went. After it went the Wright Patterson
Air Force Base, it supposedly went right over to Lockheed.

(01:21:33):
And when we say Lockheed, the location in Palmdale, not
too far from where I live now, and it is
where it's Lockheed, it's Madonnell Douglas. It's north of Grumming
all on one little facility called Plant forty two on
Edward's Air Force Base, And that's where they think all

(01:21:55):
the craft are being held and where they're attempting to
do the reverse engineering work. And they have a direct
connection with Area fifty one too, because they have the
Genet flights that go back and forth from Area fifty
one to Plant forty two. Yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (01:22:09):
And I had heard a couple of years ago that
there's some in the Northwest, there's some biological weapons plant
or something. Were like a lot of our biological and
chemical weapons are stored, and that that was the new
Area fifty one basically that that was the new location
where they could store stuff because people would be unwilling

(01:22:32):
to go there because of fear of biological and chemical weapons.
But I can't remember exactly where that plant was, but
I think it was like somewhere up in either like
northern California or into Oregon or something like that. But
I mean it would make sense. I mean Area fifty
one is like a world you know, everybody knows when
you say Area fifty one what you're talking about. It's

(01:22:55):
world recognizable. I mean, people drive to the gates, you know,
to the Yeah, So I mean it would make sense
to move any type of like really secretive operations to
another location.

Speaker 1 (01:23:07):
So yeah, Biblezar blew the lid off and George Knapp,
they both blew the lid off that place and made
it hotter than fish grease. And you know, so with
that being said, that's why you have George Knapp there, right,
because he could sift through all the you know, unnecessary talk,
which is what we've seen in previous hearies, a lot

(01:23:27):
of just blah blah blah and not really walking away
with saying hey, they really delivered something here and we
walk away and we feel like that's what George Napp did.
But as we'll talk about as we go into our
final breaks of the night, we'll come back and talk
about rumors or Ross Coltart saying that they may be
abandoning the UAP Disclosure Act. There's someone within Congress standing

(01:23:51):
in the way who would have thought we're talking about
that and more as we come back right after this
break spaced out radio the app that was Radio show.
If you leave, make sure you come right back. We'll
be back in five Ye all right, we are clear.

(01:24:23):
We are clear. And yeah, that's right, super crazy movie.
I canna tell you that anything else. Fish grease is hot.
Fish grease is hot. Believe me. Let's see. Yeah, Serihan,
that's Dougway, Utah. That's the doug Way proving Ground. And

(01:24:45):
I've seen people go to that gate and yeah it
it was. I don't know if that's the same place
Josh is talking about, but doug Way has those camel
dudes patrolling it as well, and and it gives you
the kind of feeling of Area fifty one. I don't
know really what's going on there, but they have definitely

(01:25:06):
called it Area fifty two, Sarah, for sure as you
as you post here, it's been called Area fifty two
and the one of the only army posts that carry
those kind of weapons. Oh nice, Okay, okay, okay, Sarah
Yami coming with that knowledge. T Bone saying ross the

(01:25:27):
juice drinker, you know you gotta report on it, you
gotta report on it. Yeah. Yeah, Coldark is saying that
he's heved someone that they're going that their powers or
forces within the h in the Congress, that that or
above the Congress in the House I guess in the

(01:25:47):
Senate that are trying to stop them from doing anything
else with this. And you knew it was going to
run into a brick wall at some point because it's
the it's the entity that has been uh doing this
this whole time. So yeah, it was just a matter
of time. And let's see.

Speaker 9 (01:26:19):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 1 (01:26:26):
Recruited. Okay, good information here. Let's see in the mini
series Taken, psychics were recruited to try to pilot the
Roswell craft. They got tragic results. Ah, I have to
watch that. Let me write that down, Taken. I have
to look for that. That sounds pretty I will find you.

Speaker 2 (01:26:54):
I have a certain set of skills. They're not leaving
roswell Craft.

Speaker 1 (01:26:59):
Uh uh, that's hilarious. Yep, Mel w forty. Rob g
is Jimmy Church's neighbor. Yeah, he's not too far away
from here. He trade dances around where he lives. I
don't guess. I don't know why he doesn't ever say

(01:27:20):
I live in Vagasfield. It's no secret. Come visit if
you want to. It's all good. I have an office
where I'm at right now. We could meet up and
have lunch, it's all good. Hit me up, let me know.
We'll set up a time and sit down and chat
about UFOs.

Speaker 2 (01:27:39):
I'm not too far from here, rob me may take
hip on that some point.

Speaker 1 (01:27:42):
Let's do it. Let's do it. Like I said, I
have a physical office away from home, and we can
conference room all that. We can get together and sit down, and.

Speaker 2 (01:27:52):
Then the night we can go out in the desert
and call for U ap man.

Speaker 1 (01:27:56):
I'm so and that's that's what I'm trying to get
to in my channel that I'm doing over there. Social
dig is you know, taking super chests obviously have membership
so kind of pay for the shows, but I'm trying
to actually get out into the field. I want to
go to Plant forty two and kind of do something
live from out there. Maybe we should meet up there.

(01:28:17):
Let's go to Plan forty two. Yeah, let's do it
planing for Okay, we're gonna set a date now for that,
because it's like somebody has to start shaking the branches
right of the tree and if we know, huh.

Speaker 2 (01:28:30):
Let's tie a rope to you and lower you over
the gate.

Speaker 1 (01:28:34):
And that's what I'm telling That's what I was telling
everyone that you know, when you think of top secret facilities,
usually the gate is a mile away from the facility
or even further you can't see the facility, but Plan
forty two is literally right there, like fifty feet across
the fence. So you can film the buildings. You have

(01:28:56):
it as the backdrop, and there's labels like they'll you
can go online figure out what building is what. And
it'd be interesting to do something from there. I think
the people would appreciate it. And they have a place
where you can park where all the traffic air traffic
coming in and out of the base kind of flies
right over you. So that would be cool to have

(01:29:19):
that as a backdrop too, So yeah, let's do that
whenever you're ready.

Speaker 6 (01:29:22):
Man.

Speaker 1 (01:29:22):
It's only like sixty miles from me, so I can
get there anytime.

Speaker 2 (01:29:26):
So yeah, it's about a six hour drive for me.
So it's definitely like a you know, stay a night
type of thing.

Speaker 1 (01:29:33):
So yeah, yeah, Well I have a side house here
at will not here, but at home that you're want
and welcome to come and stay the night man, So
I appreciate it. Yeah, yep, good to go. So guys,
you're going to see a combo arrive g Josh Rutler's
Combo Plant forty two, shaking the tree and telling these

(01:29:55):
contractors to show us what they got because who who's
doing it? Who else is doing it? No one coming
back here in five seconds? Here all right, everybody, welcome back.
Spaced out radio after our number two back half of

(01:30:17):
the second hour. Now much time left with our guests
here Josh Rutler's about twenty minutes. We've been talking UFOs
aliens because the story has been shocking and is going
to continue to shot. If you miss any of the
awesome conversation we've had tonight, it's in the archives YouTube
dot gone forward slash at spaced out radio as we

(01:30:40):
jump right back into the conversation here. So I know
I wanted to touch on something here. So the abandoning
of the UAP Disclosure Act potentially happening someone in congret
or in the Senate is rumored by Ross. Coldark says
this that you know they'rettempting to kill the up disclosure

(01:31:01):
and once again not allowing to you know, as far
as officially get to a point to where the officials
are releasing information. Are you surprised by this at all,
Josh or how do you feel?

Speaker 2 (01:31:14):
I'm really not, well, I'm not for two reasons.

Speaker 1 (01:31:18):
I think.

Speaker 2 (01:31:19):
One is that to not make this a political statement,
to just say that Congress just doesn't get a lot
done these days, like somebody was gonna not, I think
this is a serious topic, and do whatever they could

(01:31:42):
do to block it. And then number two, I think
that the part in it that calls for immunity for
the whistleblowers might be a bridge too far for some people.
And you know, because you know, I think from a

(01:32:06):
from a whistle blower perspective. I talked about this a
couple of nights ago on Dave Show. From a whistleblower perspective.
All the folks that we've had come forward are government people.
But what we're missing, and you know what lies outside
of FOYA is all the private contractor people. And so

(01:32:26):
this you know UAP you know bill would extend to
allow contractors who have been a part of programs to
come forward and not face prosecution for breaking their NDAs.
So I think I think that's the part where somebody

(01:32:50):
is saying, no, that's too much, that's you know, we
can't do that, we need to and it's and it's
probably even maybe even a mater of the precedent it
would set because even though the bill is written as
a UAP whistle blower you know protection Act, it would

(01:33:10):
set the precedent that whistle blowers should be immune from prosecution,
which would then be able to be used for other
whistle blower acts that extend beyond the UAP topic and
allow list of blowers again to be immunie from prosecution.
And so then we potentially would have whistle blowers that

(01:33:30):
come forward or that or that raise concerns around topics
outside of UAP and maybe for for those folks, you know,
that's also a bridge too far.

Speaker 1 (01:33:42):
And I agree with that as well. And I know
Ross said kind of touched on something about this as well,
where where it was posed to Okay, well, if these
uh you know, programs are illegal and money is being
diverted illegally to fund these programs, then wouldn't a whistleblower

(01:34:02):
be immune to their NDA? And uh, you know, Ross
was kind of going into that and talking about that
amendment and the fact that contractors would be added to
the amendment in order to kind of protect them from
reprisals as well. But he he did say when he
said that that it would be framed in a way

(01:34:25):
that information pertaining to NHI or crash retrievals would be
clear to talk about, but then anything else would still
be So I don't know how that And I think
maybe that covers that that Pandora's box where everybody can
now take advantage of this. I think that might be that.
But you know, looking at this when we talk about

(01:34:50):
the the whistle the up Disclosure Act being blocked, he
believes that there is a particular senator that might be
standing behind I guess his name is Senator Roger Wicker,
and uh, you know, whoever it is, whatever name it is.
We know the force that's there is going to be
the force that's there, and they're always going to step

(01:35:12):
in before it gets to a point to where the
secret is out. And I know there was something else
I wanted to add to that, but I can't recall.
If you have anything to.

Speaker 2 (01:35:22):
Add, well, I would just say that, you know. In
the UAP hearing, George Knapp several times made reference to
you know, the contracting agencies that are handling you know,
that are receiving this material. And every time he made
a he made a point to say, I don't I

(01:35:45):
don't think that these contracting agencies are acting in bad faith.
They're just doing what our government has asked them to do.
So if you consider potentially that, you know, let's let's
just say because named them directly. Lockheed Martin has a
contract with the government to receive crash retrieval you know materials.

(01:36:08):
But in that contract it says you cannot disclose to anyone,
even other people in the in in the government, that
you are receiving this material or else you will lose
your contract and your position as a contractor with the
US government will be at risk. If you're Lockheed Martin,

(01:36:28):
you're not talking to anybody, and you're making sure your
people don't talk to anybody. So I don't necessarily fault
the private contractors for doing what they're doing, because I
can certainly see that the contract would be written with
such language to protect the program. So, you know, it

(01:36:49):
really begs the question of is it even the contractors
that are pushing you know, the you know, this particular
person or any person to block such a bill. Maybe
the contractors would love it if the information would come out,
because then they could openly source additional people to help
them figure out how to make this stuff work. Yeah,

(01:37:11):
I'm sure they have to jump through all kinds of
hoops to get security clearances and background checks and the
whole kitten kaboodle in order to bring anybody into the program,
especially after what happened with Bob Blazar if you believe
his story. So I'd imagine that contractors would love for
the information to become more public so that they can
openly hire people to help them figure out and solve

(01:37:32):
this problem.

Speaker 1 (01:37:33):
I agree with that.

Speaker 2 (01:37:35):
I think it's somebody else, somebody else in the government
doesn't want the information to come forward, and so they're
using this particular congress person to potentially block the bill.

Speaker 1 (01:37:44):
Yes, yes, he's getting a whisper from some birdy over
here that's telling him that he needs to kill that.
And here's what I was going to say earlier, that
I forgot the point I wanted to make with the
whistleblowers and then the contractors being added to that, which
would be a groundbreaking thing if they could ever do that.

(01:38:06):
I'm feeling like the powers that be stepped in the
way of that because they know that there are contractors
in the wings waiting to be able to testify, and
it's a known thing. People behind the scenes are aware
of who might be stepping forward as a whistleblower. That's
why they get attacked immediately and even sometimes before they

(01:38:28):
come out, because they know that they're going to step
out and say something. So I think they have a contractor.
And one thing I'll point to is the Ross Coulthart video,
the one he released with the egg UFO and the
whole reasoning why that was released and not it not
being related to Jake Barber at all, but it's related

(01:38:49):
to some total other person. And this is likely a
person that's tied in with the contractor, whether on the
contractor side. And I still feel like that's one of
the shoes that's gonna drop that Ross is holding on to,
is the name and identity of whoever gave him that video,
because it does show, if believed to be true, crash

(01:39:10):
retrieval happening and then being taken to a contractor. So
I think they know that information is out there, and
they know that people who are directly related to the program,
who would be in the contractor are ready to talk,
and this is a way to make it to where
they never will be able to just to kill it. Now, Oh,
you shouldn't have brought contractors into this, because now that

(01:39:31):
you've done that, you'll never move another muscle this on
this situation.

Speaker 2 (01:39:37):
Yeah, I would agree, And you know, I think you
know there was a comment in chat someone to pose
the question of whether or not and I'm sorry, am
I supposed to wait and do comments there? But whether
or not whistleblowers could be pardoned by the president. NDA's
are typically at the state level and so therefore they

(01:39:58):
are outside of the scope of pardoning by the president.
So you know, there can be some NBA's at the
federal level, which can be pardoned, but if they're at
the state level, then they would be open for a
prosecution just like anybody else.

Speaker 1 (01:40:14):
Yeah, definitely on the state level. Yeah. Now they were
to be federally convicted, obviously the parton will cover that.
But I just feel like, and I keep That's why
I keep saying, is because in case contractors watch this
kind of show, which I think they might if they're
working on stuff like that, did you know step out
and take the chance on it? And it sounds selfish

(01:40:37):
to say that, because it's like, oh, well, you just
want disclosure, you know. I just if I were the
contract the person in that seat, I'm the type of
person that will step out and just say, hey, let's
see what happens, because this is something that is important
for humanity to know. And hey, maybe I'm the fall
guy for this, but it won't stop this information from
coming out. I'm still going to bring this information forward

(01:40:58):
and then we'll see how the cards fall. Because I
don't believe there's a situation where you step out as
a contractor. You might break your NBA technically by speaking,
but I don't see a situation where where the people
allow you to be prosecuted there should be riots in
every city or protests in every city saying free.

Speaker 2 (01:41:20):
The riots and protests don't prevent people from filing charges.

Speaker 1 (01:41:24):
But if you shake up the system enough to where
you have shown that extraterresturils are not just here, but
they're right here, and you can show them. I can
show you what they are and where they're at. That's
something that I don't know if order will be succinct
enough to execute prosecutions in that air, if you know

(01:41:47):
what I mean, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:41:49):
I mean, I know what you're saying. I think though
it comes down to for a lot of people, it
comes down to protecting their livelihood and the livelihood of
their family, you know, like you think about we've been
supposedly doing crash retrieval since forty seven. People have been
involved in that program supposedly since forty seven. So why

(01:42:12):
why do we not have more deathbed confessions? And it
may be because if they make a deathbaed confession, they
take a chance of forfeiting their pension for their spouse
or their children. So I think the the unfortunate thing
here is that number one, we don't know the language
in the NDAs. But assuming that this is as sensitive

(01:42:37):
as a topic as any topic has ever been. Then
I would imagine the NDAs or the contracts are worded
in such a way that there are generational impacts in
the form of you lose your pension, you know, not
only for yourself, but the ability to pass it on

(01:42:59):
to your love ones when you die. So if that
was the case, if you had a thirty year pension
or a thirty year retirement, but coming forward meant forfeiting
that for you and your family, would you think the
cause is worth it? Now, Rob, you probably would. You'd
probably be okay with that. But I gotta be honest,

(01:43:20):
I would really have to think long and hard over
what that sacrifice would mean to my family and whether
or not it would actually move the needle enough to
make a difference.

Speaker 1 (01:43:32):
Right, that's the responsible thing to do. I don't fault
you for that at all. I mean I would definitely
have I would definitely go through the thoughts. But if
it didn't line up, if it didn't add up, if
the future of my descendants and humanity the impact was
greater for them than it would for the government to
continue keeping it a secret, then that's where I would

(01:43:54):
have to side with humanity, and that is human combastion
that does that. And that's why I was talking about
the govern is made up of human beings, even though
together they act as like a machine in the same
way with the contractors and any business really, but when
you talk about the individuals that make up that machine,
each individual goes home at night, kiss the kid at night,

(01:44:16):
tuck them in bed. They do all these normal things
that humans do, and so at some moment of time
compassion should kick in as they go through the s
thought process. But then you do have and I think
what has been happening when you talk about going back
to Roswell some why some people didn't get more deathbed

(01:44:36):
confessions is I think they sell it the same way.
These people in these secret areas say, hey, the nation
will crumble, like do you want to be responsible for
the self destruction of the United States? And any patriot
is not going to really want to do that, right,
And so that if you hold that over a person's
head and they believe in that, they won't ever say anything.

(01:45:00):
And it's like, you know who wants Yeah, disclosure would
be nice, but if it means the end of America,
the United States, I'm just not going to do it,
And I think that's what people are kind of contemplating
with that mentality. Yeah, And to be honest, America is
the top nation in the world, and it's just like

(01:45:22):
being in anything number one. Do you want to give
up number one at any point? Like what would it
take for you to give up your championship trophy, your
belt or being the number one guy? And that's what
the conversations that they're having, Like, dude, like if you
go and say this to the news outlets tomorrow, the

(01:45:43):
stock markets will crash, America will be no more, and
we will be at risk of X, Y, and Z.
And it's like, man, they put all that.

Speaker 2 (01:45:54):
It's still whether or not it's true. The piece, the
piece that matters is that we as humans, I think
you alluded to this even at the start of the show.
We as humans allude we we we fear what we
don't understand. And even if you're a part of a
crash retrieval program, let's even say you've seen alien bodies,

(01:46:19):
it's still likely that you don't really understand any of
that stuff. Uh, you know, kind of going back to
our conversation around you know, whether or not we've actually
reversed engineered anything. We we probably don't really still understand
where they come from, why they're here, why they crashed,
why they look like they do, so on and so forth.

(01:46:39):
I do think it would have you know, maybe it
wouldn't crash the stock market, but it would certainly have
a significant impact to the religious culture of the world.
And what would that do, uh you know what, what
are the where are the echoing ramifications that that may cause?
If you know, those people who take literally the words

(01:47:03):
God created humans in their own image or in his
own image, they would look at an alien that looks
nothing like a human and think, well, what does that
mean for my God? These must be demons? Or maybe
I'm wrong, and so on and so forth. So I
think the ripple effect that would happen there is significant
all of that to be said. Like you say, they

(01:47:25):
go to these folks and they say, hey, if you come,
if you go forward, if you say anything, it will
break the world. It will reset us back to the
dark ages. I would not, I mean, I would be
really hard pressed to say, you know what, I'm gonna
take that chance and still come forward.

Speaker 1 (01:47:44):
Yeah. Yeah, it's a guilt trip. Essentially is what they're
putting on people, I think, and just scaring them to
a point to where is it? You know, they have
to they contemplate for so long if it's worth it,
that so much time has passed, and they've just literally
moved on to other things and probably don't even go
back and try to put it away so that they
don't have to think about it and move on with

(01:48:05):
their lives. I think there's a lot of that going on.

Speaker 2 (01:48:07):
Psychological warfare, you know, or the fact that Grush and
others have come forward recently, maybe they're like, oh, well,
they got it. They're taking care of it. I don't
need to come forward because Grushed it.

Speaker 1 (01:48:20):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:48:22):
That home and like the whole past the buck idea
of you know, somebody else will do it. There's enough
people in this program, somebody else will do it. It
doesn't have to be me. The problem is that everybody,
If everybody thinks that way, that nothing ever really moves.

Speaker 1 (01:48:36):
You know. I was thinking as well when we were
talking about, you know, the yourp disclosure being snuffed out,
and I was looking through a note that I had
about Luna one of the things that she had stated
during the hearing, and she had stated that that she
essentially she has enough evidence to move the conversation forward.

(01:48:59):
That they because it has been a question that I've
always asked, is like, okay, well, Congress, how many hearings
are you gonna have because you should have everything that
you need right now at this point to go execute,
you know, walking up to this contractor or whatever you
have to do. And it just seemed like she validated
that when she made that statement, and so did There

(01:49:21):
was another rep. I couldn't remember who said the same thing,
but essentially they were like, let's it's time to take
action at this point. I think it was Moskowitz might
have said that. It was like, let's or Burlison, one
of the two. He said, let's take a step and
uh now, let's take action, Like we've done all the talk,
let's take action. And so I think, yeah, I think

(01:49:42):
that may that may have prompted some sort of response
like whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a minute, like okay,
you're gonna take more action. Well, here's what we're gonna do.
We're just gonna squash out the disclosure acting. We're gonna
stop talking about it now.

Speaker 2 (01:49:57):
Yeah, I think that uh, you know, louning you and said,
you know, we can issue subpoenas or and I think
in some cases, especially when related to Borland's case, she
even said, yeah, we're going to subpoena those folks, you know,
so on and so forth. So you're right. It seemed
like at the end of this hearing we left with
action items, whereas in previous hearings it was just like, Okay,

(01:50:21):
thanks for letting us know, we'll get back to you,
you know, that kind of thing.

Speaker 1 (01:50:25):
And one of the things that I had going into
the hearings because I had some things that I wanted
to pay attention to, so I wrote down a few notes,
and one of those notes was why hasn't Congress used
subpoena power to bring in those responsible in front of Congress,
like the actual people who you really need to bring

(01:50:46):
who George Knapp, I'm sure he did give a couple
of names. Actually during the testimony, he actually said, you
might want to look into this guy, and you might
want to look into that guy. Okay, so list subpoena
these guys or I would trust George NAS's word on that,
let's get those guys in here to give their testimonies
trying to give you an allue, So go ahead and
take that and let's bring those people in next. Who

(01:51:08):
would you want to see is you know? I think
George Knat was an unexpected pleasure to see him there.
Who else would you want to see at like the
next hearing That doesn't necessarily have to be someone tied
to a project, but someone who would be beneficial to
the hearing itself.

Speaker 2 (01:51:25):
Honestly, I'd love to see Bob Blazar. Yeah, me too,
under oath at the table. You know, I think he's
been getting active back in the community the last couple
of years, pretty much since the you know, there's like
there's like a new documentary coming out about him. I'd

(01:51:46):
love to see Bob Blazar there. The other thing I
was going to mention, you're talking about the people that
George Natt mentioned. Yes, the person he mentioned for Lockeed
Martin is dead. He died in twenty eighteen, so we
can't subpoena him. Lets you want to break out the
Ouiji board, but uh, you know, I think Bob Blazar

(01:52:07):
would be great to have on the panel. And I
also think just having maybe Bob Bazar and h Dave
brush and you know a few of them, like having
them all up there together, asking them similar questions, seeing
if they can cross corroborate each other's stories.

Speaker 1 (01:52:30):
Yeah, yeah, that is awesome stuff. So we're gonna get
ready to come to break or the final break here
in a few minutes. Do you have about ten more
minutes in you after the break? Yeah? Okay, I hang around. Okay,
let me get you back here, because I had a
couple other things that I wanted to bring up with
the subpoena. Sean Kirkpatrick apparently being named in that, and

(01:52:51):
that's definitely someone that want to talk about because he's
been called out as a liar. And she said did
she say specifically she called him? I got it. Oh
my god, what did she call him? I know you
remember documented liar, a documented liar document. That's how she

(01:53:14):
starts the hearing. I'm like, oh, this is gonna be good. Okay,
this is gonna be great. So we'll go ahead and
talk about that for a few minutes. Uh when we
come back from break. Guys, it has been an awesome
conversation so far. I didn't ask for questions earlier, and
but if you have any, put him in the chat
right now, and when we bring Josh back after the break,

(01:53:36):
we'll address some of those questions. Please do. And outside
of that, guys, we'll see you back here in just
a moment. Right here, spaced Out Radio, that after hours
radio show with me your host, mister robb G. See
you right back in just a minute.

Speaker 5 (01:53:50):
Guys.

Speaker 1 (01:53:53):
Come conversations that move the need.

Speaker 5 (01:53:55):
Conversations that moved.

Speaker 1 (01:53:57):
The need of listening to After Hours with mister G
on the only place where you can own the night,
spaced Out Radio.

Speaker 5 (01:54:06):
Spaced Out Radio.

Speaker 2 (01:54:08):
You've tuned your dial to the right frequency.

Speaker 1 (01:54:19):
All right, we're clear and we're off for five minutes.
I want to bring up the magic mic thing you
talked about too. Yeah, so we'll do that, okay.

Speaker 8 (01:55:30):
At the battle compact the constant to.

Speaker 10 (01:55:44):
Constant pac and st pat and staccato.

Speaker 9 (01:56:52):
Bug don't don't doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
doo dooo, don't remember boom.

Speaker 11 (01:57:46):
Boom boom, boom boom boom, bootle to the double pump.

Speaker 2 (01:58:51):
To people to.

Speaker 5 (01:58:58):
The bum.

Speaker 1 (01:59:29):
All right, welcome back, Space Out Radio, app Hours Radio Show.
We're in our number three already, and the guest Josh
Rutledge has agreed to join us back here. Uh so
we'll be getting questions answered and covering at least one
or two more topics that I had here. We're coming
back from radio here in about three seconds here, all right, everybody,

(01:59:52):
welcome back Space Out Radio app Hour number three, back
with Josh Rutlie going over time talking more us and aliens.
Because the story is so shocking, I'm telling you just
go back and listen to what we've talked about tonight.
The archive is absolutely free and it's a YouTube dot

(02:00:12):
com forward slash it based out Radio. We consider you
going over there, maybe even subscribing. How about that that'd
be a good thing as we jump back into the
conversation here. So thanks Josh for staying with us a
little extra here. There were a couple things that I
did want to still talk to you about specifically, and
one of those things was Luna an AA Polina Luna

(02:00:35):
during the hearing talking about well, first let's say this,
she started off the hearing saying that Sean Kirkpatrick was
a documented liar as the head of Errow Bombshell That's
kicked off the night. Then later in the hearing, she
also stated that she'd be open to subpoena him and

(02:00:57):
actually is probably looking to do that very soon. What
did you think about all that? Isn't it about time
that they finally acknowledge that arrow is what we know
it is. I?

Speaker 2 (02:01:10):
Well, so, like I talked about earlier, I think that
I think that there are two. I think that there
are two, let's say, positions of arrow. I think there's
this the Sean Kirkpatrick position of arrow, which reminds me
a lot of not that I was alive when it happened,
but it reminds me of a lot about reading about

(02:01:31):
the you know, the Condon Report and the statements from
Condon saying, you know, I think it's all bunk, but
I'm not supposed to come to that conclusion for another
you know, six months or whatever I'm paraphrasing. So Sean
seemed to approach the topic at arrow as you know,
nothing to see here. But the Congress formed this agency

(02:01:55):
and they asked me to run it, and so I'm
gonna run it, but I'm just not really gonna do
anything that you know, I feel like, you know, I'm
I think I'm supposed to be doing. But with Kazlowski.
There seems to be a difference, I think, and I'm
you know, I'm going to say that after that interview
that I watched with him and Neil la grasse Tyson,

(02:02:18):
I honestly feel like Kaslowski wants answers.

Speaker 1 (02:02:23):
And and he will.

Speaker 2 (02:02:25):
Uh whether or not those answers will ever be made public,
I don't know, but it really seems like he wants information.
He wants answers that he talked about with Neil about like,
you know, they're going to launch a website sometime this
fall where the public can submit cases. They don't judge anybody,
and they're in there whatever their stated experience was. They

(02:02:48):
instead just look for supporting evidence to support, you know,
whatever that person's experience was.

Speaker 1 (02:02:55):
You know.

Speaker 2 (02:02:55):
So I think with Kaslowski and Arrow, it's different now
to your pre statement when it was under Sean Kirkpatrick. Yes,
it was a hoax. It was it was it was
a false you know department. They weren't doing anything, They
had no intention of doing anything. And I and I
one hundred percent agree that Sean Kirkpatrick should be subpoenaed

(02:03:18):
before Congress to basically ask these questions to specifically as
it relates to Borland's case, where we know that he
followed procedure and reported it to Arrow, and yet he's
being blackballed. Uh and he you know, he's lost his pension,
he's lost his medical coverage, so on and so forth.
Somebody needs to answer for that. Because Congress stood Arrow up,

(02:03:41):
they put the trust in Arrow to do the right thing.
Sean Kirkpatrick basically said, that's cool, but I'm not going
to do that.

Speaker 1 (02:03:48):
You know.

Speaker 2 (02:03:48):
He was subsequently removed. But somebody needs to be held accountable,
and honestly, Borland's case needs to be reevaluated.

Speaker 1 (02:03:57):
Don't you remember back in the day, only a few
years ago, seems like forever though, when they were just
considering putting up this office Arrow and it was just
an idea. They said they were gonna do it, and
we had a more of a public facing option at
the time. I can't even recall the name. But do
you remember the public facing option? No, I don't remember.

Speaker 2 (02:04:22):
I know that that. It seems like that group has
gone through like three or four different name changes over
the last probably four years. Yeah, yeah, but I do
remember them talking about it being more public facing and
then it was adjusted to say, no, we're gonna focus
on you know, government reports first. So I mean, I

(02:04:44):
you know, Kazanski though, you know he talked about with
Tyson saying that you know, we werely we because we
don't judge anybody's submission up front. We take them at
face value until we're able to either determine what it
is that they saw or not right. That's that's this
whole approach. Because of that, there are many more eyes

(02:05:08):
outside of the government than there are in the government.
So he's like, if we really want to see the information,
if we really want to see the data, we have
to open it up to people outside of the government
to submit.

Speaker 1 (02:05:21):
And this is what Kauselowski said, Yep, okay, I mean
I'm open to it. And it sounds good. It sounds
good on the face of it. And how easy is
it to look like a good guy or a better
guy when you're following right behind Sean Kirkpatrick who was
obviously lying about a lot of different stuff with the
statements that he made. So it's kind of easy for

(02:05:43):
John Koloski to kind of step in there and say, hey,
we're going to be more transparent, and yeah, we should
probably do this, well, can we see the first action
of you doing said thing? Show us the first action
where you kind of because until then Arrow is still arrow,
and what is going to be afraid to go there
and give their statements or information? So what are they

(02:06:04):
at the end of the day going to really be
able to do until Kaselowski steps up and shows, Hey,
this is what we intend to do, and I'm gonna
show you. Until that happens, I don't know, but I
can't wait to see Shan Kirkpatrick in front of Congress
because now you're under oath. Dude, you've been lying all
this time. Now you can't now you So the Shakra

(02:06:27):
Patrick we should see testifying and Congress should be a
totally different Sean Kirkpatrick than we've seen it all these
other hearings and different things, because he cannot lie at
this point, and it'll be pretty easy to kind of
catch him up in a few of those lies. So
I just I'm hoping that that's what comes next, is

(02:06:50):
Schanka Kpatrick in a hearing. That's the next thing that
we get, and then potentially eventually the Bibles are thing
because George Nap, I know, is gonna try his best
to make sure he aligns that to happen. But you know,
as far as Shanker Patrick, like, blatantly lying to the
public shows that you have been directly picked to do

(02:07:12):
said job, and then so who told you to do it?

Speaker 8 (02:07:16):
Is?

Speaker 1 (02:07:16):
Maybe those are the questions that he'll be asking and hearing.

Speaker 2 (02:07:20):
Now, of course he could always you know, it's not
a court of laws, but it's like some equivalency of
pleting the fifth, right, he could say something like I
don't recall you know, that's generally the private sector version
of pleating the fifth. So you know, just because he's
there doesn't mean he has to answer those questions. But
I still agree that it would be nice to get

(02:07:41):
him in there to kind of grilling on, you know,
his mishandling of arrow.

Speaker 1 (02:07:47):
And then some of the you know it just like
with a lot of these hearings, I talk about reading
between the lines and then talk think about what wasn't said,
and I think we'll get some of that as well,
like what't you won't say that? Okay, well we probably
have a good idea why you won't answer that. So
him not answering will essentially be just as good as

(02:08:08):
him testifying truthfully, you know and and I think the
whole twenty years from now or ten years from now,
if it comes out that you lied under oath, if
it comes to light, you could be something can happen
to you behind that. So with that being said, do
you take that risk? Are the people who are telling

(02:08:28):
you to lie also giving you assurances that you'll be
okay if you lie at this hearing? And so you
got to kind of think about some of that. But
we'll know when he's lying and when he's not lying.

Speaker 2 (02:08:39):
Yeah, So I don't know if we'll know when he's lying,
But but I think you know you're you're right. I mean,
it's kind of like the situation of if somebody says,
you know, did you did you murder this person and
you say, I plead the faith. The fact that you
didn't say no is almost an admission of guilt and

(02:09:00):
public opinion. So if he takes a similar route of
he asked to ask the question and he just responds with,
you know, legal counsel has advised me not to answer that,
then that's you know, in my in the in the
court of public opinion, that's an affirmative.

Speaker 1 (02:09:16):
So let me ask you this, what all this stuff
going on. So we go back. We started the show
with three I at list, which is something coming in
right now. We don't understand we'll be finding out in
the next couple of weeks what it actually is. So
we have that event currently. But if we go back
a calendar year, not even a full calendar year. October thirty,
twenty twenty four is when that the video that was

(02:09:39):
released at the Congressional hearing was filmed, and that's that's
showing that it is less than a year ago, a
calendar year we fired on the UFO. So you have that,
and this may all be coincident. I'm just gonna lay
out a couple of things. You have that on that date,
Then you have two weeks later the Congressional hearing with
Louel Azando, so that happens. Then five days after that

(02:10:03):
is when the new Jersey drone encouraging starts. So is
it a coincidence that we fire in a UFO, UAP,
whatever you want to call it. Then three weeks later,
less than three weeks, we have objects parked over what
the East coast of the United States plus other places
around the world. So you have that, Then you have
the governments standing up saying, well, we don't know what
it is, and you know, it's playing the total dumb roll,

(02:10:26):
like they have no clue on what's going on and
they don't see these things up here every single day.
So you got that. Then you have Jake Barber or
the video they have been leaked to Ross Koldark coming
out with the egg shape UFO, So you have that,
which signifies a tie directly to a contractor so it's
like the last piece of the puzzle. Then you get

(02:10:48):
you know, the once it will. Now you get the
three I atlas. You just have to wonder what part
of all these things are related, if any and just
going down a logical thought path, like what does what
would it mean to you if even two of these
things are connected?

Speaker 2 (02:11:06):
Well, I mean, I think we have to be careful.
You know, correlation does not equal causation, and so yeah,
it's easy to look at a sequence of events and
assume they're related because we don't understand the details or
the specifics about some of those events. I think if

(02:11:31):
any of them were found to be legitimately related to
each other, then I might just say that we are
on a slow roll of disclosure and that only those
that are willing to go back and do the work
to piece together the different puzzle pieces that have been

(02:11:55):
released since twenty and seventeen and really get the full
picture are really going to be rewarded with understanding the
full disclosure picture.

Speaker 1 (02:12:06):
And look, not only that, but NASA never says anything,
never actually sees aliens or however you want to explain
their acronym. They come out and say there's life on Mars.
So there was ancient life on Mars. This all happens
within this timeframe. NASA would really like, we've seen those

(02:12:27):
signs there this entire time, as long as the rovers
have been there. We've seen signs that there was water
and all these things that would lead you down a
path to figure that there was probably life at some
point there. So for them to come in this moment
and hold a press conference out of after everything they
said to the opposite and they come and confirm ancient

(02:12:48):
life on Mars, it just is weird to me that
all this stuff happens in this small window of time
less than a calendar year. All these events were talking about,
and it just feel like something is on the horizon
and the thing that always look back to is the
uh uh, the rosscol Dark statement of him talking to

(02:13:10):
people in the know who say, we're on borrowed time,
and you have to just you know, you have to
just at least think about it, because once again, just
like Ivy Lobe, this may just be a comic, but
you at least have to think about it, because there's
still the chance that it is this other thing.

Speaker 2 (02:13:29):
Well and and I mean it's also the chance that,
you know, like the movie don't look Up, that it
is a comet and it's not going to pass by Earth,
but it's gonna hit her. You know, there's there's always
that possibility too.

Speaker 1 (02:13:44):
You know, that's been in the back of my mind.

Speaker 2 (02:13:46):
True, and and it kind of gets back to the
idea of you know, if if you could know the
date and time that you were gonna die, would you
want to know? And you know, I'd say, like I've
asked that question to people, and half the people I
asked say, well, yeah, because then I could you know,
really appreciate everything that life has to give me. And

(02:14:08):
then the other half are like, well, no, I'd rather
just you know, it just happened and not really know.
And so you know, it's you know, if that's the
case where it's just some you know, this planet has
seen a lot of extinction events, and maybe that you know,
we found to reach a technological ability to be able
to predict when the next one is going to hit,

(02:14:28):
and there's really nothing that we or the civilizations can
do about it, and so let them just you know,
let them just be and then one day, you know,
it happens. So I don't want to send anybody off
to bed, you know, feeling like, you know, I have
some insight.

Speaker 1 (02:14:44):
I don't.

Speaker 2 (02:14:44):
I'm just that's always a possibility. And so I think
all of that being said, you're right, it does feel
like though, that we're we're edging closer and closer to
some significant event, whether that be disclosure in the form
of you know, like the movie where is It Not?

(02:15:09):
Are nine?

Speaker 5 (02:15:10):
No?

Speaker 1 (02:15:10):
What is it?

Speaker 2 (02:15:10):
The failings that yeah, that the Park over South Africa
talked about. Yeah, I mean, whether it be like something
like that where they show up and they just partnership
and they're like, you know, help us or whatever, or
it's you know, they they you know, like like in
Superman uh Man of Steel, you know, Zo takes over

(02:15:32):
the TV and gives the announcement. Maybe it's something like
who knows, but it it feels to me like we
are marching towards some event which will change the our
understanding of our reality. But I I don't have an
indication that that that what that event will be, but

(02:15:56):
based on what I'm seeing so far, it does feel
like that event is coming regardless of the preparedness of
our government.

Speaker 1 (02:16:06):
I can't agree with you on that. And out of
all those things we just lined up those on that timeline,
it's just the two things that in a normal situation
would never happen. I feel like, is the government releasing
video of firing on a UF. I just don't ever
see a situation where that happens. And then I also

(02:16:26):
don't see a situation where NASA just comes out and says, hey, yeah,
we found life. Ain't you life for sure? On this
other planet. I just don't see a world where those
two things happen and then happen right next to each other.
It's like it just feels, as you said, like something's
being prepared for in the background. So Mars MA, life
on Mars is not shocking to most of us. We
figured that's probably the case, and we probably came from

(02:16:48):
there as well. If they dig, they'll probably find bones
and things of that nature. But I know you wanted
to talk about and I want to get to the
Magic Mike Skywatcher thing. We'll talk about that, because I'm
not fully clear on what that is.

Speaker 2 (02:17:01):
Sure. This was I think Thursday during the day Russ
Coltheart released an interview with a gentleman name Mike Bautista,
also goes by Magic Mike Batista, and uh. He basically
claimed that he was a he's a former psionics for

(02:17:24):
the Skywatcher organization, and he was doing a psionic event
in his backyard at his personal home and he saw
a craft coming over and he asked to meet them,
and they said, sure, put your dog away. So he
went inside and put his dog away, and when he

(02:17:46):
came back out, something like was ejected from the from
the craft and floated down, and as it floated down,
it morphed and changed into a couple of different things,
and he took these little like videos and stills that
are highly picked late, and so it's really hard to
really tell or see anything. But then, you know, he said,
eventually it landed in his backyard and it was like

(02:18:09):
a bluish being with a purple skin tight suit standing
in front of him, and he was like, I'm just
staring at it, and it's staring at me. And he's like,
and there's a chicken in my backyard, so my chickens
just staying there, which I think would be a hilarious
scene for like dirty filth to Uhle Street for sure.

Speaker 1 (02:18:30):
Is that the one where I think he showed a
video of what he's calling an object powering up or
kind of displaying or glowing like he's talking to it
saying glow. Yeah, okay, so I just yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:18:42):
And it's and it's like, uh, you know, sometimes he
says it looks like it's got wings like an angel,
and then now I don't know, it's it's very it's
very pixelated. It's really hard to really know what he's seeing.
He's shooting it on a on a Samsung Galaxy, which
you know, I've got one and it does amazing pictures.

(02:19:06):
But video at night is is you know, less to
be desired, So I mean, I don't know. It's an
interesting concept or idea that you know, if you have
the ability to interact with these craft as a part
of Skywatcher and you retire or leave Skywatcher, you wouldn't,

(02:19:26):
you know. It's not like you turn in your equipment
and you can no longer do this activity. So it
would make sense that any one of the psionics could
be able to do this activity outside of, you know,
their involvement with the agency. So I mean, I think
Russ seemed to give him a lot of credibility out.
You know, Russ was playing the videos back and he
was picking out details that I didn't really see. So

(02:19:50):
I think in that regard, Russ was kind of maybe
stretching a little bit as to what he was seeing.
But it's an interesting thing. And I will say that
there's one bill that Mike Batista has that matches a
picture that I have taken with a thermal camera in
my house of an entity standing in front of a window.

(02:20:15):
So I plan on going to grab that. I'm gonna
throw those two pictures side by side and put them
up on YouTube channel at some point and let let
people be the you know, let let other people decide.
But it's it's pretty amazing the the similarities between the
still that he has and the picture that I have.

Speaker 1 (02:20:32):
So now I'm gonna believe that these things are definitely
walking around Earth. There's a video alway show which is
labeled the Dobby Alien. This is alien walking down the
driveway and people some people just swear that it's not
what it is. And I just totally feel like we're
watching a video of an extraterrestrial walking on the ground

(02:20:54):
of Earth and there hasn't been anything that's kind of
debunked that. And the side by side thing is a
good idea.

Speaker 9 (02:21:00):
I know.

Speaker 1 (02:21:01):
I saw recently the Compton alien video where someone had
done that and they said it was this particular type
of alien which actually had the same sort of shape,
head and kind of framework. And so I think there's
probably a lot of that going on and we should
look further into that. But I'll tell you, I'll tell
you this this Mike Batista. You know, I'm gonna look

(02:21:25):
more into him. But I think you probably should drop
the Magic mic Park because I think that's a stripper name.
I think that's like a male stripper. So you want
to be taking so with yeah, Chad Tatum, So if
you if you want to be taken seriously, we got
to probably drop that part of it. And uh, you know,

(02:21:46):
at the very least guys if we're going to go
into this, so we'll see what happens with that. I
appreciate the work Ross Coultar does, but I do feel
sometimes the stuff is kind of out there on a
on a on on on a in a place where
we probably shouldn't be talking about that yet, where we
still should be talking about the more the basic stuff,

(02:22:09):
and I think he sometimes takes us down a road
where we are even getting more woo than you'll find
on this channel. It's sometimes right, and it's just I
don't know if that's the conversation to have on the
national stage.

Speaker 2 (02:22:23):
Yeah, I mean, I think Russ is kind of like
we talked about earlier with aviy And and Niels and
Gross Tyson. Russ is a community uh, I'll call him
a community leader when it comes to this kind of stuff.
I mean he's breaking, you know, breaking boundaries with these
interviews and things that he's doing. But he's also a
guy who is learning and growing in his own experience

(02:22:46):
with the phenomena, and he brings people that journey that
he's on personally, but he needs to learn how to
separate his personal journey from his professional representation of just general,
you know, groundbreaking information because when you hear Russ talk

(02:23:08):
about some of the things he does on his personal podcast,
most people don't look to see if there's a News
Nation stamp in the upper left hand corner. You just
assume that he's representing News Nation and vice versa. So
that's where I think, you know, again, you have to
do things to somehow distance or at least set the

(02:23:28):
expectation that what you're talking about is your personal experience,
your personal opinions, whatever the case may be. And I mean,
I would hope that because I don't put you know,
you know, Moufon, Josh or whatever behind my signature, that
when I'm on these shows, I am not representing Moufon.
I'm representing myself and my personal opinions about the topic.

(02:23:50):
Do I investigate for Moufon, Yes, but I don't represent
Moufon in my expectations in my communications.

Speaker 1 (02:23:58):
I agree, I agree, and I think think him. It's
been growing as we see into the phenomena. You have
to recalibrate yourself and I have to do that as
I host myself, and I talked to so many people
about the phenomena, but I always have to recenter myself
and remember that we still have to come from a
middle of the road perspective. It's been a pleasure having
you Josh here tonight. I do appreciate you coming in.

(02:24:21):
We're gonna be back in our number three the back
half with Tales un Told, Steven Stockton and more. Don't
go anywhere, we'll be right back right after. Great all right,

(02:24:42):
mister Rutledge. We're clear appreciate you coming in and always
having awesome conversations. We're gonna do it again. I know
you're doing the week show with Dave now so, but
still come by. You know, we still got to have
you on and have conversations over here.

Speaker 2 (02:24:57):
So yeah, it's always a great conversation.

Speaker 1 (02:24:59):
Man.

Speaker 2 (02:25:00):
Really appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (02:25:00):
All right, Josh, have a great rest of your night, man,
Thank you and taking care. All right, guys, that is
Josh Rutledge in the building having an awesome conversation once again.
You know, as we always say, if you missed any
of this stuff, hopping archives is absolutely free YouTube dot
Com forward slash at space style radio. As we prepare

(02:25:24):
to get into some Steve Stockton here right after the break,
actually let me bring up his we bring up the image.
All right, all right, so we'll be ready for that
when it comes up. But once again, yeah, conversations that
move the needle. That's what we do here. You know.

(02:25:46):
Usually in after hour number three we have our after
hours wrap over with Drew Banky. As you know, he's
been on this crazy move and re establishing himself being
kind of off the grid like he is. And I
know he's preparing to come back here soon and so
we'll have him back in our three guys coming back.

(02:26:10):
I can't say the date, but pretty soon here. So
with that being said, I hope everyone has enjoyed the show.
Let's take him another moment again, in case you forgot earlier,
didn't have a chance. Let's just look right under the screen.
There should be a like button. Please consider going ahead
and hitting that like button. Let us know how you
felt about the show thus far, and it helps us

(02:26:34):
kind of let YouTube know what you guys think about
the show and leave comments as well. I believe I
hear comments helps the algorithm and also liking or disliking
however you feel about the video. So we'd appreciate either
way if you do that. And Polly Roderman saying thank you,
Robbie g Hey, thank you Polly Roderman for me and

(02:26:57):
who you are and coming in and joining the conversation
with us. We appreciate you not knowing what time it
is out there. You're on the other side of the world,
which is awesome that we can have these conversations globally,
right with people from all around the world tuning in
different countries, different continents, coming in to do what we

(02:27:21):
do here. So awesome stuff. As always, I'm going to
get ready to let me set up some stuff here
for Steve Stockton and okay, all right, we got about

(02:27:44):
two minutes before we come back from break and let
me see comment from earlier to night, Jose Sanchez, the
same Moon is a business interest decision of NASA and

(02:28:04):
others right now. More than anything else, mining equals money. Yeah,
I mean, that's that's it's just if we ever went
I just have a hard time understanding why they can't
just go back. I just I just can't understand why
they can't just go back. It doesn't make sense to me.
It really doesn't make sense, especially if we're supposed to

(02:28:26):
be reverse engineering things that can take et home, well,
it can take us to the moon right, it can
get us there, and I just you gotta look at
what we know, right, and it kind of lays out,
it kind of answers some questions for you, and I
think it's always a cool thing. Let me see, this

(02:28:54):
is interesting, Poli, and I hadn't heard of this. I'll
look into it and maybe we can address it on
a upcoming show. The argument between Luna and Laslow. Why
is Luna retracting from her statement about having seen dead
alien picks. I didn't hear that she actually did hear
or see dead alien picks. So that's interesting to know, Polly.
I'll have to look into that. Send me if you can,

(02:29:17):
because you're awesome like that. Send me a link to
my Facebook messenger so I can take a look at that.
I would totally appreciate it. So we have about twenty
seconds left before we come back here from break. Really quickly,

(02:29:40):
do you think to release the Agent Disclosure documentary, Stratton's
book Spielber Disclosure and another movie David Grissel SOULTI and
I will move the need on twenty twenty six, Yes,
quick answer, all right, everybody welcome Max faced Out Radio,
the after hours radio show After Hour number three back
half of the show. We have about twenty minutes left
and which means we have enough time to get in

(02:30:02):
some Steven Stockton tells un told missing person mysteries, and
then maybe a UFO and weird news story of the week.
We'll see what we do. But guess what if you
missed the conversation with myself and Josha Utlers, it was
totally awesome. You gotta hop into archives. It's found at
YouTube dot. Donald Fobo slashes spaced Out Radio. So as

(02:30:23):
we go ahead and get the end of this show together,
we're gonna go ahead and jump into some Steve Stockton
tells until Missing person Mysteries, and we once again appreciate
Steve being part of the show and we value his
input here at spaced Out Radio. Let's go ahead and
jump right on into that. And here we go.

Speaker 12 (02:30:45):
Welcome to Tales I'm Told and Missing Person's Mysteries un
Spaced Out Radios after Hours. My name is Steve Stockton,
and I'm here to take you on a journey of mysteries,
legends and true stories. Come join me on this strange
adventure of tales untold and missing person mysteries. Mitchell Weisser,

(02:31:06):
aged sixteen, also known as Mitch, and his fourteen year
old girlfriend, Benita Mara Bickwitt, also known as Bonnie, reported
missing after being seen hitchhiking along a highway in Narrowsburg,
New York. They were heading northwest towards a town called
Watkins Glen, one hundred and seven miles away. The date
was Friday, July twenty seventh, nineteen seventy three, and the

(02:31:30):
couple were desperately attempting to hitchhike their way to the
Watkins Glenn Summer Jam Concert. The concert was a huge affair,
posting performances by The Almond Brothers, The Grateful Dead, The Band,
and many other popular artists of the time. Approximately six
hundred thousand.

Speaker 4 (02:31:47):
Individuals were in attendance of the concert, earning it a
spot into the Guinness Book of World Records. Out of
the massive crowd that numbered well over half a million,
only two individuals vanished without a trace, Bonnie Beckwit and
Mitch Weisser. No one has seen or heard from them
since they attended and participated in the event. Mitch was

(02:32:10):
a resident of the Flatbush neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York,
and had initially intended to go to the concert with
his friend Larry Marion. However, due to Larry's mother's restrictions,
Mitch asked Bonnie to join him instead. Bonnie and Mitch
had been together for about a year when he decided
to take time off from his summer internship at a
photography studio in Coney Island to attend the event. He

(02:32:34):
was determined not to miss it. He was overjoyed when Bonnie,
who had been a parents' helper at Camp Wilmot during
the summer in the Catskill Mountains, decided to join him.
She had attended the camp as a child and cherished
her time there. However, when her boss would improve her
time off to go to the concert with Mitch, she
quit on the spot and told him she would be

(02:32:55):
back after the concert to elect her personal belongings and
final paycheck. With worried expressions, Mitch's mother, Shirley, and his
sister Susan pleaded with him to reconsider attending the concert.
Both of them strongly believed it was a poor decision,
yet he refused to change his mind and was determined
to go. Shirley stepped in and offered him some money

(02:33:18):
to cover his travel expenses there and back. At that moment,
Mitch was already making his way out the door. It's
unclear if he didn't hear or if he was purposely
ignoring her, but with only twenty five dollars in his pocket,
he left without a second glance and never returned. He
would never step foot inside his home again. Mitch rode

(02:33:39):
a bus to Nerisburg and then hopped on another one
to Camp well Met, where he arrived around midnight on Thursday.
By this point, he was almost completely broke. He made
sure to call his mother and sister to let them
know it he arrived safely, but also that he had
very little money left. His mother and sister were understandably
worried and tried once again to convince him not to go,

(02:34:02):
but Mitch assured them that he would be fined and
promised to see them when he returned home. On Sunday,
his plan was to hitchhike one hundred and fifty miles northwest,
but he could attend the outdoor concert with Bonnie. After
spending the night at their campsite, they had breakfast on
Friday morning before embarking on what they thought would be
an exciting adventure. A caneman in a pickup truck offered

(02:34:25):
them a ride back to Narrisburg, and they gratefully accepted
before making their way to Highway ninety seven. Using a
homemade cardboard sign, they hitchhiked and asked for a ride
to the concert. When the truck driver glanced back one
last time, Little did he know that it would be
the final confirmed sighting of the two teenagers. As Sunday

(02:34:45):
night passed without a call or appearance from Mitch as
he promised, his family grew increasingly concerned of the next day.
They were filled with worry and dialed camp Well met
to speak with Bonnie. With their dismay, they discovered that
Bonnie also did not return on the and no one
had heard from her either. Susan and Sidney Wiser, Minch's

(02:35:05):
sister and father drove all the way to Watkins, Glenn
the search for the two teenagers, while Mitch's mother surely
waited anxiously at home. Meanwhile, Donnie's parents, Theodore and Ray,
were unaware of their daughter's disappearance since they were vacationing
in Cape god. Upon hearing the devastating news, they rushed
to camp Well met without hesitation, they reported their daughters missing,

(02:35:29):
hoping for assistance and finding her. However, their hopes were
quickly dashed as the police brushed off their concerns and
chalked it up to another pair of teenagers who'd run
away after attending a concert. Just three days before her disappearance,
Annie had sent a letter to her parents. In it,
she expressed her happiness at Camp Well Met and how
much she valued the freedom she had there. She also

(02:35:52):
mentioned that when she returned home, she hoped her parents
would give her more space to grow and travel. This
last part gave them hope that perhaps she had gone
on a trip and would contact them soon. After the
authorities refused to help with any investigation into their missing children,
both Bonnie and Mitch's parents decided to let them explore
their freedom for a while. They waited patiently for school

(02:36:15):
to start again, hoping their kids were just traveling on
their own. However, when neither of them showed up for
the first day of school, all the parents feared the worst.
Described as a sweet boy with shouldered, linked hair pulled
back into ponytail for the show glasses and hazel eyes,
Mitch was known for his love of baseball, his girlfriend,
Bonnie Photography and the Grateful Dead even named his dog

(02:36:39):
Casey Jones, after one of the band's classic songs. His
friends admired him for being courageous and rebellious. According to
his sister Susan, he was a talented and gifted individual.
She kept a box filled with her brother's belongings as
a memento of the brother she loved dearly but lost
too soon, among the eye in the box or his

(02:37:01):
old tortoise show glasses, his poetry, ticket stubs from the
nineteen sixty nine Mets World series, trading cards from the
nineteen sixty four and sixty five New York World's Fair,
and a large birthday card made by Mitch's friends on
his fifteenth birthday. At just four feet and eleven inches,
Bonnie was a petite young girl, weighing around ninety pounds.

(02:37:23):
She had a face full of freckles and long brown hair.
Her close friends often referred to her as a free
spirited individual with a sweet disposition, sharp intellect, strong determination,
and fearlessness. Music was one of her passions, and she
particularly adored the Almond Brothers band. Bonnie was a student
in gifted classes and instead of going to a traditional

(02:37:46):
high school, she chose to attend the experimental John Dewey
High School. That's where Mitch and Bonnie first crossed paths
and bonded over their shared academic successes. With impressive GPAs
and ambitious plans for the future, it seemed unlikely that
they would simply vanish without a trace. To make matters
more suspicious, they had secretly exchanged wedding rings, leading the

(02:38:09):
police to believe that they may have deliberately disappeared together.
Even after six weeks of no contact, the police remained
doubtful and dismissed the disappearance of the simple teenager runaways.
Frustrated by their lack of action, the parents of both
missing teenagers took matters into their own hands and launched
independent investigations, re tirelessly working to bring attention to the case.

(02:38:33):
In nineteen seventy three, despite the passionate police for these
two disressed families, investigators from three different counties in New
York chose to ignore their crist for help and refuse
to launch an official investigation, despite assurances from the NYPD
that they would inform other agencies nationwide about the missing teens,
they failed to do so. As a result, the Slovan

(02:38:55):
County Sheriff's Office also neglected up investigation on the case.
On the twenty fifth anniversary of the disappearance of the teenagers,
Bonnie's sister, Sheryl Kagan, decided to launch an investigation to
finally uncover the truth behind her sister and Mitch's fate.
Herdess May. She discovered that the original case files, notes

(02:39:16):
through investigators, dental records, and a list of potential witnesses
had all been lost by both the Salvan County Sheriff's
Office and the NYPD's Missing Persons Squad. As a result,
crucial information was not entered into the FBI's National Crime
Information Center. A former detective from Sullivan County named Anthony
Suarez confessed that he had been assigned to the case

(02:39:38):
in nineteen ninety four, but never attempted to contact the
original investigator or make any effort to solve the mystery
of Bonnie and Mitch's disappearance. Anthony Suarez passed away in
May of twenty twenty. Now, in the year two thousand,
a man came forward with a remarkable tale. Unfortunately, it

(02:39:59):
was never confirmed and the man has since passed away.
In summary, he claimed to have hitchhiked with Bonnie and Mitch,
who were desperately trying to get home from a concert
they couldn't reach. They were supposedly picked up by an
ORANGEBW bus, but the driver pulled over when things got
too intense. The group stopped at the Susquehanna River for
a swim, but unfortunately, both Mitch and Bonnie were swept

(02:40:22):
away by a strong current. The driver left, but promised
to contact the police, so the other hitchhikers saw no
need to do so himself. Eventually, he did meet with
investigators at his own expense, and now the police believe
his story is the most likely explanation for what happened
to the missing teens. Nevertheless, the families remained doubtful and

(02:40:44):
are waiting to hear from the driver or any other
potential witnesses. However, despite their efforts, no one has stepped
forward with any information about the incident. This case remains unsolved.
Next up, we have the case of Jojo Delard. On
November ninth, nineteen ninety five, twenty one year old Jojo

(02:41:07):
Delard left her home in Callen County Kilkenny to take
a bus to Dublin, where she was supposed to meet
up with friends. After spending the afternoon at Brookswall's Pub
on Grafton Street, she planned to take the bus back
home around ten pm. However, she missed the last bus
of the night and had to board a different one
that would take her somewhat close to her find her

(02:41:28):
destination in nass County Kildare. With no other plans for
the evening, she hopped off that bus and began hitch hiking.
This was a common occurrence at the time. After hitch
hiking her first drive to Moon, Jojo called a friend
from a faith fault. She promised to be home soon
as someone had just pulled over and offered her a

(02:41:50):
ride while she was making the call. As soon as
she hung up, she presumably got into the car and
was never seen or heard from again. Even though her
family can continuously asked for updates and assistance, the police
initially refused to provide any help. They believed Jojo voluntarily
disappeared and would reappear on her own eventually. During the evening,

(02:42:12):
when Jojo Dlard disappeared, a truck driver claimed he saw
a young woman running naked through Moon. The driver and
his boss were traveling through the area at the time
and spotted the visibly distressed woman, but they did not
stop to offer assistance. They did, however, follow the police
and were promised that someone would immediately go to the
location and investigate. The driver claimed that he later learned

(02:42:35):
the woman was not Jojo, and authorities confirmed that it
was actually someone else. Now, the murder of Jojo was
only recently declared by authorities, and now the police are
searching for any traces of hermains. The case was reopened
a few years ago and the Police Service of Ireland
issued a statement to the public. In JoJo's family they

(02:42:57):
now believed she was a victim of homicide that her
cause of death was most likely due to violent means.
This case is filled with an extraordinary amount of information,
largely due to the relentless effort of JoJo's family, particularly
her devoted sister. They've taken upon themselves to investigate the case,
feeling let down by the authorities from the get go.

(02:43:20):
Hiring investigators and following leeds has become their own responsibility.
Despite all their efforts, the truth behind Jojo Delarde's disappearance
remains elusive and sadly, she is not the only young
woman to go missing in that area. Next, we have
Jamie Herdman at only twenty six years old. Jamie Herdman

(02:43:41):
was a skills chef from Vacatone, New Zealand. He had
failed to work at a furniture removal company in Broome,
Western Australia when he disappeared. During his free time, Jamie
poured his passion into renovating a Nissan utility van that
he dreamed of taking for a cross country trip across Australia.
After completely his project and waiting for the perfect moment,

(02:44:02):
Jamie finally set off on his.

Speaker 1 (02:44:04):
Long awaited road trip.

Speaker 4 (02:44:06):
Jamie's family reported him missing on December five, two thousand
and six, when they couldn't reach him during his trip.
An investigation was launched and authorities discovered that Jamie was
last seen hitchhiking at Dally Waters, approximately three hundred and
seventeen miles from Darwin, where his family believed he was headed.
His van, which had a history of overheating, was quickly

(02:44:27):
located abandoned near a roadhouse on Stuart Highway. Inside the
unlocked van, authorities found Jamie's clothes, phone, credit cards, toothbrush,
and some cash. However, his keys were missing. In November
of two thousand and six, Jamie made the unusual decision
to travel through the center of Australia on his way
to Dally Waters. His brother Karl described this as bizarre.

(02:44:51):
Jamie was an avid fisherman, leading his family to believe
that he would have more likely chosen her oute along
the coast. However, Carl reported that Jamie he had left
room suddenly and without informing anyone, not friends, family, or
even his employer. The family suspected that Jamie may have
received a warning from a friend about someone who was
after him or planning to harm him in some way.

(02:45:15):
Everyone held on to the hope that Jamie was simply
unaware of the search efforts to find him, and that
he was out there somewhere continue his journey and still safe.
There was also the possibility that he had become stranded
in a remote Aboriginal community, cut off from the rest
of civilization due to severe flooding. But as more time
passed without any word from Jamie, it became increasingly unlikely

(02:45:39):
that he would be found alive. Despite extensive search efforts
on land and in the air, no trace of Jamie
or any clothes I SAOs whereabouts have ever been discovered.
He remains missing to this day, along with many others
who have traveled through the isolated Australian outback and never
returned home. And finally, Joshua Jones. Joshua Jones, a twenty

(02:46:04):
nine year old man from Hurst Rise in matt Locke, Derbyshire, England,
left his home on December twelfth, twenty twenty, at approximately
eleven thirty. He told his wife Talia that he was
going to the pharmacy and would be back soon. Before leaving,
he kissed his two year old son and wife goodbye,
but never return. At around noon, CCTV footage captured Joshua

(02:46:25):
at a department store and then later at a nearby
Sainsbury grocery store. Witnesses supported seeing him hitchhiking on the
A six point thirty two towards Chesterfield at around four pm.
Prior to his disappearance, Joshua had texted his wife saying
I love you to the moon and back. This mysterious
vanishing led to both reports to the police about potential

(02:46:48):
sightings of Joshua However, no one has been able to
locate him since. When he disappeared, he'd been wearing a
gray super dry jacket and blue jeans. The sleeves of
the coat were light coat and the inside was green.
Other identifying features include a Japanese inspired tattoo on his
right arm featuring a dragon, a coyfish, and a crane.

(02:47:09):
On his left wrist, there was a tattoo in Tallia's
handwriting that read to the Moon and back with a
red rocket and runes surrounding a moon inside. Despite the
efforts of authorities, including drone searches, mountain rescue teams, and
a helicopter, Joshua Jones could not be found, nor any
information about his disappearance. There are no leads or evidence

(02:47:30):
in this case. His wife claimed that she wasn't surprised
that he couldn't be seen on CCTV footage because there
were only cameras in central matlock Dahia also mentioned that
her and Joshua had often talked about leaving society behind him,
building a treehouse to live in. During the pandemic and lockdowns,
Joshua struggled with feeling trapped and anxious. He refused to

(02:47:52):
seek medical help, believing time would heal his wounds. Dallia
remains hopeful that her husband is still alive and possibly
living in the wilderness, as he was skilled in survival
and love the outdoors.

Speaker 1 (02:48:03):
Now, there is no.

Speaker 4 (02:48:04):
Record explaining the reason that he would have had to
possibly leave his wife and son behind intentionally. However, the
day before he vanished, his card broken down, and both
he and Italian were concerned about the expenses of getting
it fixed and how that would affect plans to purchase
Christmas gifts. On top of that, rent was due and
they had yet to shop for their holiday mail. Hollius

(02:48:26):
speculates that the stress of their life together may have
pushed him to flee. Unfortunately, there is no further information
on this case, and Joshua Jones remains missing to this day.

Speaker 1 (02:48:38):
Wow, awesome stuff there, Steve Stoctor tells her told miss
person Mysteries, we're going to try to fit a UFO
and news story in here, so we're just going to
jump right on into that, and here we go, ladies.

Speaker 8 (02:48:52):
And gentlemen, Can I please have your attention.

Speaker 12 (02:48:58):
I've just been having in emergency hoifying new story.

Speaker 1 (02:49:07):
What you're doing, all right? UFO Weird News of the Week,
We're gonna jump right into it. AI expert reveals why
it's most certain we're living in a simulation. Buckle up, folks,
is one AI expert is just revealed what we may
be very well living in inside of simulation. With artificial
intelligence continuing to develop a breakneck speed, seeing the rise

(02:49:31):
of chat gpt N Kenny Valley AI videos and concerns
about the future of the job market, talk has now
turned to what our hypothetical future could look like. Technology
buffins are currently debating when AI could feasibly become sentient
and which job sectors will be lost to computer based
brains in the near future. But what if I told

(02:49:51):
you none of this mattered is we're all living inside
of simulation in the first place. According to computer scientist
doctor Romey Yapoonski, this is the exact vACC scenario which
could be unfolding right at this moment. Yimpolski recently gave
an interview on Stephen Bartleer's Diary of a CEO podcast,
of which he revealed his predictions about which jobs will
survive the AI revolution and a chilling prediction for what's

(02:50:15):
to come in the next twenty years. However, none of
this may even matter anyways. We could all just be
a cog in someone else's simulation. If you ever watched
nineteen ninety nine science fiction classic The Matrix, then you
surely have some sort of understanding behind arguments that we're
all living in a simulation. Put simply, simulation theory believers

(02:50:35):
argued that our universe and everything inside of it is
nothing more than a computer simulation created by a technologically
advanced civilization. The theory was popularized by philosopher Nick Bostrom,
who argued to the following, the fraction of human level
similations that reach a post human stage is very close
to zero, the fraction post human similation interested in running

(02:50:57):
ancestral simulations is very close to zero, and a fraction
of all people with our kind of experiences or living
inside of simulation is very close to one. If the
third scenario were to be true, then a statistically more
likely that we're living in a simulation rather than base reality.
AI is getting to the level of creating human like
agents of virtual reality is getting to the level of

(02:51:19):
being indistinguishable other from ours. He continued, if you believe
we can create human level AI, and you believe we
can create reality as good as this. The moment this
is affordable, I'm going to run billions of simulations of
that exact one. Unfortunately for us, there's no way to
tell if this is real life or if our lives
are nothing more than creations in someone else's personal sims game.

(02:51:43):
Just something to think about as you go about your day.
And I don't know how I really feel about simulation theory.
I could, you know. I believe they say if we
can create, if we can successfully create a simulation a
simulated world world, then we also must be living in
a simulated world, is the idea. Don't know how I

(02:52:06):
feel about that, but I do know how I feel
about today's show. And I definitely want to thank Josh
Rutledge for coming on in having awesome conversations as always,
because we have to move the needle here spaced out
radio after ours radio show. I also want to thank
the man that you hear right there. He's the man
that rocks us out each and every show because he

(02:52:27):
shows us to never say never again, because yes, the
phenomenon is real. That means anything and everything is possible.
If you enjoyed what you heard tonight and make sure
you hit the like button. Also throw your horns up.
We also want to thank of viewers online and listeners
on terrestrial radio and digital platforms. Winning wherever in the
world you may be listening from. We appreciate you for

(02:52:49):
tuning your frequency to spaced out radio. What we do,
what we do best? What stat you asked? We own
the ninth Remember this show is copyright bigfil brodcast some
limited space to our radio media eventures. There's been a
place of serving you once again as your host, I'm
mister Rob G. This is the app hours radio show

(02:53:09):
into all you space travelers out there. This is not
a goodbye nor farewell, as we are back and back
earlier than ever. We'll see you next time. Make sure
you take care, same time, same place. Don't forget

Speaker 3 (02:54:06):
Y

All Episodes

Sept. 21/25 - ALIENS & UFO'S : THE STORYSO FAR w/ Josh Rutledge

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

.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;}Sept. 21/25 - ALIENS & UFO'S : THE STORYSO FAR w/ Josh Rutledge