George Knapp -UAP Cover Up by the U.S Government, Mainstream Journalists, and Hollywood Continuous

0:14 Speaker 1: Good evening everyone. You're in the right place at the

0:18 Speaker 1: right time. This is coast to coast am blasting out

0:22 Speaker 1: of the Mahabi desert like a Shiraco, blazing across the land,

0:26 Speaker 1: slamming India Radio like a supercharged nano particle of unobtainium.

0:31 Speaker 1: Greetings from the boldest, bodiest, most outrageous city in the world,

0:35 Speaker 1: the planetary capital of sun, fun, sin, sex and secrets.

0:40 Speaker 1: Mine not so humble hometown, Las Vegas, Nevada. My name

0:43 Speaker 1: is George Napp, your occasional host, designated driver of the

0:46 Speaker 1: airwaves and moderator of Tonight's upcoming cacophonost Cavalcade of conversation.

0:52 Speaker 1: What's shaken out there? Tonight? It seems like a perfect

0:55 Speaker 1: opportunity to take a break from the hustle, bustle, buy

0:58 Speaker 1: and spind run around like a crazy person hyperactivity of

1:01 Speaker 1: the holiday season, kick back, sip a beverage, ponder not

1:05 Speaker 1: only the universe, but the year that's just about done.

1:09 Speaker 1: Twenty twenty two went by in a blur, didn't it,

1:11 Speaker 1: But tonight would take stock of some of what's unfolded

1:14 Speaker 1: this year, try to make some guesses about what comes next,

1:17 Speaker 1: but mainly in the coast to coast vein. That is

1:20 Speaker 1: what's next for our strange little slice of the cosmos,

1:24 Speaker 1: our collective grasp on reality. This week marks five years

1:28 Speaker 1: since the world of UFOs changed forever. Back On December seventeenth,

1:33 Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, the print edition of The New York Times

1:36 Speaker 1: revealed the contrary to all the propaganda that's been force

1:39 Speaker 1: fed to the public about UFOs over decades, that the

1:43 Speaker 1: Pentagon had in fact been studying the subject in secrecy

1:46 Speaker 1: all along. Times told about a program called a tip

1:50 Speaker 1: once headed by Loue Elizondo, with a twenty two million

1:53 Speaker 1: dollars secured by Nevada's senior Senator, Harry Reid. My pal,

1:57 Speaker 1: they got a few things wrong in that story, but

1:59 Speaker 1: the essence of that piece was correct and true. After

2:03 Speaker 1: all the denials and dismissals and public pooh poohing by

2:07 Speaker 1: defense folks and presidents about UFO incidents and cases, they

2:11 Speaker 1: really had been looking at this behind closed doors all along,

2:14 Speaker 1: and Wow, some of what they'd been studying was truly

2:17 Speaker 1: anomalous and unexplained, specifically the tic Tac case. That was

2:21 Speaker 1: the example they used in that New York Times piece

2:23 Speaker 1: that really sold the story, that one that toyed that object,

2:28 Speaker 1: that toyed with our best fighter planes and messed with

2:30 Speaker 1: our best aviators from the USS Nimitz group. There was

2:34 Speaker 1: video that was released, the testimony of Black Ace's pilot

2:37 Speaker 1: Dave Fraverer, statements from Senator Read about the importance of

2:41 Speaker 1: the work that was being done, acknowledgment from Robert Bigelow

2:44 Speaker 1: that his company here in Las Vegas had the contract

2:46 Speaker 1: to do the digging. Everything changed. Other media started digging

2:51 Speaker 1: in and reporting about UFOs too. Suddenly Congress became interested.

2:55 Speaker 1: Cautiously at first, you know, behind closed doors, hearing testimony

2:59 Speaker 1: from aviators and others. Then publicly, and before you knew it,

3:03 Speaker 1: we had an acknowledged UFO investigation, the UAP Task FORSE.

3:07 Speaker 1: They didn't call it UFOs, call it UAP. Gave it

3:09 Speaker 1: a new moniker there. This UAP Task FORRSE went to work,

3:13 Speaker 1: and soon we started hearing about cases they were investigating.

3:16 Speaker 1: And then this year the first public hearing in front

3:19 Speaker 1: of Congress, first public hearing in like half a century,

3:22 Speaker 1: and we heard about a new program that was dubbed AMSOG.

3:26 Speaker 1: That was the name for a while. Then they reshuffled it,

3:28 Speaker 1: gave it a new name arrow or new acronym that is,

3:31 Speaker 1: and now here we are awaiting yet another report to

3:34 Speaker 1: Congress that was due on Halloween. So where is it

3:37 Speaker 1: and what will it contain once it gets released, assuming

3:40 Speaker 1: the public ever gets to see it. So much has

3:43 Speaker 1: changed in five years, and they're more more changers, major

3:46 Speaker 1: changes just this year alone, with promises of big stuff

3:50 Speaker 1: to come, whistleblowers who are supposedly getting ready to step forward,

3:54 Speaker 1: protected witnesses, protected by legislation that's just about to be

3:58 Speaker 1: signed into law by the President. We're hearing about more

4:01 Speaker 1: reports from military folks and intelligence agencies. Where is all

4:05 Speaker 1: this going to lead? It's exciting times. It's exciting stuff

4:09 Speaker 1: as irritating as it might be once in a while.

4:11 Speaker 1: Joining me tonight two of the best UFO journalists in

4:14 Speaker 1: the world. Bryce is Abel, longtime CNN correspondent, a writer,

4:18 Speaker 1: a co host of Need to Know, which is a

4:20 Speaker 1: YouTube video podcast that debuted one year ago. Happy anniversary, Bryce.

4:25 Speaker 1: Bryce's partner in that endeavor is a multi award winning

4:28 Speaker 1: national correspondent from Australia, Ross Coltart, who's broken numerous major

4:34 Speaker 1: UFO stories all over the world over the past five years,

4:37 Speaker 1: along with the best selling book. Both of these guys

4:39 Speaker 1: have been on the show earlier this year, and I

4:41 Speaker 1: promised i'd have him back to help make sense of

4:43 Speaker 1: twenty two at the end of the year. And well,

4:47 Speaker 1: there's so much to cover. We're going to be getting

4:49 Speaker 1: to that in just a few minutes. You know. My

4:51 Speaker 1: first program, my first cost program of this year, started

4:54 Speaker 1: with the guest I've come to know really well. He's

4:56 Speaker 1: had a great career as a hard news reporter for

4:59 Speaker 1: a national netw then he became a muckety muck in television,

5:02 Speaker 1: wrote these scripted programs, including the excellent Dark Skies drama

5:06 Speaker 1: and NBC A lot of you'll remember that. He's written

5:09 Speaker 1: extensively about UFOs, especially over the past five years, and

5:12 Speaker 1: is the co host of Need to Know, an excellent

5:15 Speaker 1: podcast carried on YouTube, co hosted by his friend and

5:19 Speaker 1: colleague Ross Colthard. Bryce is Able as the first host

5:23 Speaker 1: and Ross as the second host. I don't know if

5:26 Speaker 1: they'd agree with that order or not. You know, Ross

5:29 Speaker 1: is one of the best known and most honored journalists

5:31 Speaker 1: in Australia. He's broken numerous big stories around the world,

5:34 Speaker 1: on UFO developments and programs and secrets in this country

5:38 Speaker 1: and his home country and others. Ross was here on

5:40 Speaker 1: the show a couple of months ago. I promised him

5:42 Speaker 1: we'd bring him back to be with Bryce to review

5:45 Speaker 1: the whole year and more. And that time has come. Gentlemen.

5:48 Speaker 1: Great to have you here. Can't wait to get going.

5:51 Speaker 2: George is great to be with you. You know, I

5:54 Speaker 2: don't know that the co host thing. I always think

5:56 Speaker 2: of Ross as the Johnny Carson of Need to Know. McMahon. Yeah,

6:02 Speaker 2: happy to be here, caffeinated, ready to go, excellent.

6:05 Speaker 3: You know.

6:05 Speaker 1: The only boss, the only other guy I wish was

6:10 Speaker 1: with us was would be my pal Jeremy Corbell, but

6:13 Speaker 1: he's working on a secret project at home tonight and

6:15 Speaker 1: so but he sends his regards to you, guys. I

6:18 Speaker 1: want to start with some current events. A little press

6:20 Speaker 1: gaggle what some might call a media gathering and informal

6:24 Speaker 1: briefing held by the Department of Defense to talk about

6:27 Speaker 1: UFO's UAP, and needless to say, the three of us

6:30 Speaker 1: were not invited, not that I would ever expect to be,

6:33 Speaker 1: but if I'd be dishonest if he didn't say it

6:35 Speaker 1: bothered me that none of us, three of us were

6:38 Speaker 1: considered ross. I want to start with you. Let'll give

6:41 Speaker 1: you your take. When you heard that this event was happening,

6:44 Speaker 1: that you were not asked, you didn't know who was asked,

6:47 Speaker 1: you didn't know what the structure was. What did you think, ol.

6:51 Speaker 3: Of George, It's got the whole with of As you know,

6:54 Speaker 3: we're waiting for this UAP report that is statutorily required

6:58 Speaker 3: by your Congress to be tabled in the Congress. It's

7:02 Speaker 3: long overdue, should have been in by the end of October,

7:05 Speaker 3: and I think that what that press conference was was

7:08 Speaker 3: a clear attempt to control the narrative before that report

7:13 Speaker 3: hits the pages. I reckon what you'll see is that

7:16 Speaker 3: report gets dumped just before Christmas, when everybody's winding down

7:20 Speaker 3: for the year, putting their feet in front of the fire,

7:24 Speaker 3: warming up the mulled wine. There's just no interest at

7:28 Speaker 3: that time of the year in covering hard news stories.

7:31 Speaker 3: And it's a deliberate attempt, I believe, a disingenuous attempt

7:35 Speaker 3: by the Pentagon to try to minimize public interest in

7:38 Speaker 3: what I suspect will be an acutely interesting UAP report to.

7:43 Speaker 1: Congress the same question to you bryce the fact that

7:46 Speaker 1: it happened on the very same day, the five year

7:49 Speaker 1: anniversary of that New York Times story, was that odd?

7:52 Speaker 1: What did you make of that?

7:54 Speaker 2: Well, you know, it's a coincidence, and it depends on

7:57 Speaker 2: how you look at coincidences. I think they couldn't possibly

8:01 Speaker 2: have missed their awareness that it was an important day,

8:06 Speaker 2: and I certainly think it is an important day, and

8:08 Speaker 2: I think history will record that as what they actually

8:11 Speaker 2: talked about there. I thought it was disappointing in a

8:14 Speaker 2: lot of ways, but I was encouraged only in one

8:18 Speaker 2: way that they were having it, and I think they

8:20 Speaker 2: should have more of these. I think more people should

8:23 Speaker 2: be invited, and I think the questions should get tougher

8:27 Speaker 2: and people should be pressed for real answers. The only

8:31 Speaker 2: thing I questioned, though, was I think they did say

8:34 Speaker 2: in this transcript. I'm I'm trying to find it right now.

8:37 Speaker 2: I can't. Maybe you guys have read it, maybe you

8:39 Speaker 2: can remember. But I thought that somebody there said that

8:42 Speaker 2: the report that was due on October thirty first would

8:46 Speaker 2: be coming out very soon. Do you guys remember that

8:48 Speaker 2: as well?

8:49 Speaker 3: Yeah, that is the case. They do say that they'll

8:52 Speaker 3: say it comes out very soon. The funny thing about

8:55 Speaker 3: it is they had enough information about it right back,

8:58 Speaker 3: even a few weeks ago, and now brief Julian Barnes

9:01 Speaker 3: of The New York Times about it, and for some

9:03 Speaker 3: obscure reason, the public are being kept in the dark

9:06 Speaker 3: right up to the very busiest time of the holiday season.

9:10 Speaker 3: I just don't think I'm afraid we have to call

9:12 Speaker 3: this for what this is, George. It's an attempt to

9:16 Speaker 3: try to minimize public interest and to control the narrative,

9:20 Speaker 3: and to follow on from what Bryce has been saying.

9:24 Speaker 3: In the actual course of the press conference, I was

9:27 Speaker 3: really struck by how Ron Moultrie, the Under Secretary for

9:32 Speaker 3: Defense for Intelligence and Security, Ron moultry basically kept on

9:37 Speaker 3: talking over Sean Kirkpatrick, who's nominally the boss of the ARROW,

9:42 Speaker 3: the UFO UAP investigation group inside the Pentagon, and so

9:47 Speaker 3: any time a curly question was asked, especially by our chum,

9:51 Speaker 3: Christopher Sharp. For example, from the Liberation Times Daily Mail,

9:56 Speaker 3: Chris Sharp asked about whether or not there was any

9:58 Speaker 3: detection of an ominous object in space. Sean Kirkpatrick's just

10:02 Speaker 3: about to answer, we're all leaning on the edge of

10:04 Speaker 3: our seats, and then Ron Moultrie leans in and says, oh, sources,

10:09 Speaker 3: means and methods, we can't talk about that. I'm sorry.

10:12 Speaker 3: You know, to discuss that would be to reveal our sources,

10:14 Speaker 3: means and methods what a load of cogs want. And

10:18 Speaker 3: I was disappointed that some journal didn't lean in there

10:22 Speaker 3: and say, as you as should at a press conference, Oh,

10:25 Speaker 3: come on, why would it prejudice sources, means and methods

10:29 Speaker 3: to acknowledge what I do know is the case? Because

10:32 Speaker 3: it's coming in through Pine Gap here in Australia, the

10:35 Speaker 3: Joint Facility here in Australia, they are seeing anomalous objects

10:40 Speaker 3: in space. Why couldn't that be acknowledged?

10:43 Speaker 1: I want to remind our listeners that Ron Moultrie, if

10:46 Speaker 1: any of you watched that UFO public hearing before Congress

10:49 Speaker 1: back in the summertime, Maultrie was the DoD guy who

10:54 Speaker 1: sort of took control of that meaning too. And what

10:56 Speaker 1: he did was he sort of set the stage or

11:00 Speaker 1: that hearing by saying, hey, you know, I was a

11:02 Speaker 1: big Star Trek fan. He didn't say Star Trek, but

11:05 Speaker 1: I was a real sci fi fan as a kid,

11:07 Speaker 1: and I might have even worn costumes to parties and stuff.

11:10 Speaker 1: Yuck aty yuck, equating UFOs with sci fi, you know,

11:16 Speaker 1: showing pretty much his colors right off the bat. It

11:19 Speaker 1: was a very subtle thing, but it bothered me.

11:21 Speaker 2: Oh, George, it made Rawson myself just want to tear

11:25 Speaker 2: our fists out of the ceiling. I mean, listening to

11:27 Speaker 2: the May seventeenth, you know, public hearing, which was a

11:31 Speaker 2: congressional hearing, the first in fifty four years, if I'm

11:34 Speaker 2: not mistaken, so on that regard, it was very good,

11:37 Speaker 2: but watching it was such a disappointment. And I have

11:40 Speaker 2: to say Ron Moultrie has become the new bane of

11:44 Speaker 2: my existence. I just it's like fingers on a chalkboard

11:48 Speaker 2: when I have to listen to this guy. But I'll

11:50 Speaker 2: tell you one thing, guys, which I thought was kind

11:51 Speaker 2: of interesting. As I was listening to that and also

11:54 Speaker 2: reading through this transcript, I thought I was getting nostalgic

11:58 Speaker 2: for the days of Blue Book when there was just

12:00 Speaker 2: one group that was investigating UFOs. And you can pronounce

12:04 Speaker 2: it because I just wrote this down from memory. But

12:07 Speaker 2: we've had as at a tip errow currently AIMESOG, the

12:11 Speaker 2: UAP Task Force the UAP JPO, you know, and it's

12:17 Speaker 2: just you ask yourself, why would someone try to confuse

12:21 Speaker 2: what the investigations name of the Even office is. I

12:26 Speaker 2: don't get it. Something and I agree with Ross. Something

12:29 Speaker 2: is going on in terms of pushback. It's not exactly clear,

12:34 Speaker 2: but it's not good.

12:36 Speaker 1: Ross mentioned the name Julian Barnes. I don't know Julian Barnes.

12:39 Speaker 1: I know of him now because of this piece that

12:41 Speaker 1: came out in the New York Times almost two months ago.

12:44 Speaker 1: It was a debunking effort. It was a what you

12:46 Speaker 1: call a pre bunking effort. It was meant to throw

12:49 Speaker 1: cold water on this UAP report before it was written.

12:53 Speaker 1: Now they Fence Department has told us it hasn't been written.

12:56 Speaker 1: Maybe it's finished by now, and they're they're just about

12:58 Speaker 1: done with it. But when he wrote that story, acquoting

13:01 Speaker 1: unnamed sources, the report was not finished. It had not

13:04 Speaker 1: been written, it was still collecting information. Yet they tried

13:08 Speaker 1: to debunk it. And of course Julian Barnes is one

13:10 Speaker 1: of the journalists that was invited to this event, and

13:12 Speaker 1: he asked what I would think to be the key question,

13:15 Speaker 1: what they hoped the headline would be, have you found

13:17 Speaker 1: in the evidence of space aliens? And of course, you know,

13:20 Speaker 1: the Pentagon was only too happy to answer that, no,

13:23 Speaker 1: we don't have any evidence of space aliens. I don't

13:25 Speaker 1: know what that evidence would be, but I suspect that

13:28 Speaker 1: that is the headline that they wanted. And a couple

13:30 Speaker 1: of media outlets, The Drive was one that bid on

13:32 Speaker 1: it and ran with it. Ross your thoughts on that, Yeah.

13:36 Speaker 3: That's exactly what they were trying to do, George. It

13:38 Speaker 3: was all about trying to control the narrative, to make

13:41 Speaker 3: sure that the message that they want is out there

13:45 Speaker 3: before the report that they have to begrudgingly provide to

13:49 Speaker 3: Congress is actually disclosed to Congress. And I just wanted

13:53 Speaker 3: to echo a few of the answers that came through

13:55 Speaker 3: in that press briefing, because even though most of the

13:59 Speaker 3: questions were pretty lame and tame. For example, Oren Lieberman

14:03 Speaker 3: from CNN, he asked about whether there was any indication

14:06 Speaker 3: that these cases or the data that they've gathered is

14:10 Speaker 3: in any way indicative as something that's a threat to

14:12 Speaker 3: US national security or to a military facility or personnel,

14:17 Speaker 3: And do you have any reason to believe that from

14:20 Speaker 3: what you've looked at so far, and Sean Kirkpatrick answered

14:24 Speaker 3: truthfully yes, and then Rob Moultrie God blessons he has

14:30 Speaker 3: runs in quickly and basically says, now, just to clarify,

14:33 Speaker 3: we're still trying to resolve some of these places, and

14:35 Speaker 3: they probably still could be characterized as civilian blooms. It's

14:39 Speaker 3: the old blooms story again. The one thing I did

14:42 Speaker 3: notice is that Ron Moultrie didn't try and crank out

14:45 Speaker 3: that tired old Chinese drone yarn that he pulled back

14:49 Speaker 3: in May in the congressional briefing where he was suggesting

14:52 Speaker 3: that all of the objects that Jeremy Corbell broke the

14:56 Speaker 3: story of art and his brilliant report about videos of

15:00 Speaker 3: range objects hovering over US Navy ships. Around twenty nineteen,

15:06 Speaker 3: there was no more talk from Rom Moultrie, the Undersecretary

15:09 Speaker 3: Defense for Intelligence and Security about Chinese drones. Yes, some

15:14 Speaker 3: of these may be drones. Yes, some of these objects

15:17 Speaker 3: may be explained as drones. But on the record, the

15:21 Speaker 3: Pentagon admitted to the media, and this was the key takeaway,

15:26 Speaker 3: this is a threat to national security because any unauthorized

15:31 Speaker 3: system in the space is deemed a threat to safety.

15:35 Speaker 1: And I thought, good point. I think there was some

15:37 Speaker 1: good stuff to come out of this. Yeah, go ahead.

15:41 Speaker 3: No, that's the key admission, and I think we need

15:43 Speaker 3: to keep on reminding ourselves. When you were doing your

15:45 Speaker 3: summary at the head of the show, George, I was thinking, gosh,

15:48 Speaker 3: we have come a long way in five years. Five

15:52 Speaker 3: years ago, when I tried to sell a story to

15:55 Speaker 3: my television program that you know UFOs are potentially that

16:00 Speaker 3: there is a phenomena that even the Pentagon is acknowledging

16:04 Speaker 3: is real, I would have been laughed out of the

16:06 Speaker 3: news room. Now, mercifully, I can say that the TV

16:09 Speaker 3: network that I work with here in Australia, they're enthusiastic

16:13 Speaker 3: for UAP.

16:14 Speaker 1: Before we leave this topic about this event that was

16:17 Speaker 1: held on Friday, I want to get Bryce, I want

16:20 Speaker 1: to get you to weigh back in on it. But

16:21 Speaker 1: I do want to make this comment. There were some

16:23 Speaker 1: good reporters there, you know. I think probably three of

16:26 Speaker 1: us are ticked off that we weren't even considered for

16:28 Speaker 1: I would now I'd be very surprised if I would

16:30 Speaker 1: ever be invited to something like that, because I'm not

16:33 Speaker 1: considered a good friend of the Pentagon. On the UFO issue.

16:36 Speaker 1: But they did have some good people that Brian Bender,

16:39 Speaker 1: Chris Sharp, you mentioned Owen from CNN who and there's

16:42 Speaker 1: some good stories came out of it. They may have

16:44 Speaker 1: wanted a headline that said no evidence of space aliens.

16:47 Speaker 1: What they got was like The Guardian had a really

16:50 Speaker 1: good piece. Associated Press had one too that basically said,

16:53 Speaker 1: there are hundreds of new cases that came in, they're

16:55 Speaker 1: not explained. And then there was some discussion of crash retrievals.

16:59 Speaker 1: You know they I think they wanted that to be

17:01 Speaker 1: shut down, but the answer was we're looking into it.

17:03 Speaker 1: We're trying to figure out through all the compartmentalized programs

17:06 Speaker 1: whether there's anything to it. Which that's not a headline.

17:09 Speaker 1: I would think that they'd want to have bryce your

17:11 Speaker 1: take on that event and future events. I guess you'd

17:14 Speaker 1: have to agree that everybody should be invited, right well,

17:17 Speaker 1: I mean as.

17:18 Speaker 2: Many as they can get into the room. But you know,

17:21 Speaker 2: I agree with what you just said. Interestingly enough, we

17:24 Speaker 2: were talking about how the Department of Defense would like

17:26 Speaker 2: to control the narrative. But what you were deciding about, George,

17:29 Speaker 2: sort of proves that that's a false hope because once

17:32 Speaker 2: people start asking questions, then one door after another starts

17:36 Speaker 2: getting opened, and controlling the narratives never has worked. I mean,

17:39 Speaker 2: think about it. Nixon tried to control the narrative, the

17:42 Speaker 2: narrative on Watergate, Reagan on Iran, contry, Clinton with Monica,

17:47 Speaker 2: but you know what, it all came out anyway. We

17:49 Speaker 2: may be entering a place where we're close to that.

17:52 Speaker 2: I just wanted to pick up on two quick things

17:55 Speaker 2: that you guys talked about in the last segment. We

17:57 Speaker 2: were talking about how things have changed since twenty seventeen,

18:01 Speaker 2: and they certainly have. But the biggest one for me,

18:04 Speaker 2: and the best and simplest way I can explain it

18:07 Speaker 2: is pre twenty seventeen, when I started talking about UFOs

18:11 Speaker 2: with friends and family, they all kind of looked at

18:13 Speaker 2: me funny and treated me like the drunk uncle at

18:15 Speaker 2: the wedding. And post twenty seventeen they asked me questions.

18:20 Speaker 2: They say, what do you know about this? I saw

18:22 Speaker 2: something on the news. I know you're into this, please

18:25 Speaker 2: explain it to me. So that's a big change.

18:27 Speaker 4: And then the.

18:27 Speaker 2: Final thing, I just wanted to bring up this Chinese

18:30 Speaker 2: drone thing. The reason it's been abandoned is pretty simple,

18:33 Speaker 2: or it's not totally abandoned, by the way, But the

18:35 Speaker 2: reason it needs to be abandoned is if there are

18:38 Speaker 2: Chinese drones out there doing what these uap are reported

18:42 Speaker 2: to be doing up to ten thousand miles an hour

18:44 Speaker 2: trans medium from space to atmosphere. To see that this

18:51 Speaker 2: thing's been going on for seventy five years, there were

18:54 Speaker 2: not Chinese drones in nineteen forty seven, or nineteen fifties

18:57 Speaker 2: or nineteen sixties. That didn't exist, So what would explain

19:01 Speaker 2: the same level of observation back then? And so I

19:04 Speaker 2: think that's why that dog won't hunt much longer. So yeah,

19:09 Speaker 2: I was happy to see this. I was happy to

19:11 Speaker 2: see some of those reporters that you talked about being there.

19:14 Speaker 2: They're good reporters, and good reporters don't take the spin

19:19 Speaker 2: that's dished out to them. They ask questions and they

19:21 Speaker 2: come up with independent conclusions like you do, like Ross does,

19:25 Speaker 2: and like I do, and hopefully many more we'll be

19:28 Speaker 2: doing that in the future.

19:29 Speaker 1: You know, it's I think an indication that good journalism

19:32 Speaker 1: still exists, and good journalism can still change the world,

19:36 Speaker 1: can change things, and I know, you know, at least

19:38 Speaker 1: in this country. Ross, everyone loves to hate the media.

19:41 Speaker 1: The press, our profession is vilified by the right and

19:46 Speaker 1: the left. I don't know if that's true in Australia now,

19:50 Speaker 1: but the New York Times story changed the world. Even

19:54 Speaker 1: though it wasn't one hundred percent accurate. It allowed, in essence,

19:57 Speaker 1: allowed other media to take this seriously and start digging

20:00 Speaker 1: into it. And then you had sixty Minutes and the

20:03 Speaker 1: Washington Post and other media organizations CNN, MSNBC, Fox in

20:08 Speaker 1: a big way. Fox News in a big way has

20:10 Speaker 1: gone after it, and it has changed the world. It

20:13 Speaker 1: allowed members of Congress to go ahead and admit that

20:15 Speaker 1: they're interested in this instead of talking about it only

20:18 Speaker 1: behind closed doors. Ross your take, I agree.

20:22 Speaker 3: I think the interesting thing to lesson for Congress is

20:25 Speaker 3: that they ignore this issue at their peril. I mean,

20:29 Speaker 3: even in my home country here in Australia, I'm stopped

20:32 Speaker 3: frequently now on the street by people who listen to

20:35 Speaker 3: our podcast Need to Know Dot Today, and they basically

20:39 Speaker 3: come in and say, look, you know, I really like

20:41 Speaker 3: the stories that you're doing on Channel seven. There's a

20:44 Speaker 3: real interest in an engagement. But I have to admit George,

20:47 Speaker 3: I'm still very disappointed by the level of media engagement

20:51 Speaker 3: and the kind of the default mockery. I was really

20:54 Speaker 3: shocked that a great paper like the New York Times.

20:58 Speaker 3: I've done stories with the New York Times, and I've

21:00 Speaker 3: seen how much they verify and check sources. But if

21:04 Speaker 3: you're a senior national correspondent, like for example, Julian Barnes,

21:09 Speaker 3: and you're a national security correspondent and you're called into

21:12 Speaker 3: the Pentagon for a quiet briefing with the very senior

21:15 Speaker 3: officials who no doubt briefed him, I suspect Ron Moultrie

21:19 Speaker 3: was one of them. You know, if you're given that

21:22 Speaker 3: kind of briefing, you don't, as we would say in

21:26 Speaker 3: politely in Australia, you don't pee on your source. You

21:29 Speaker 3: basically do the right thing by them. And the difficulty

21:33 Speaker 3: is that for national security correspondents they're compromised on this

21:37 Speaker 3: issue because, as we all know, there's been a long

21:40 Speaker 3: cover up. The cover up is a matter of public record.

21:44 Speaker 3: The Pentagon has been misleading, disingenuous, actively sought to suppress

21:50 Speaker 3: public interest and awareness of the UAP issue. And Bryce,

21:54 Speaker 3: with your knowledge of Hollywood, you know there's been an

21:56 Speaker 3: active attempt through movies and through that retelling of storm

22:00 Speaker 3: is to try to suppress what is actually going on

22:03 Speaker 3: inside the government because at the same time that we're

22:06 Speaker 3: all being fed to public narratives that UAPs are easily

22:10 Speaker 3: explained prosaically, that they're probably were the balloon's probably natural phenomenon.

22:15 Speaker 3: We now know behind the scenes, they never stopped investigating.

22:21 Speaker 3: And my worry is is that we're being said a

22:24 Speaker 3: very deliberate controlled narrative by the Pentagon, and we can't

22:29 Speaker 3: let them stick to this. We need to hold their

22:32 Speaker 3: feet to the fire. I'm genuinely concerned that senators like Jilibrand,

22:38 Speaker 3: Senator Jilibrand of New York, the Marco Rubio, the Republican

22:43 Speaker 3: senator from Florida. You know what, Why on earth aren't

22:46 Speaker 3: these people out there stating their concerns that the UAP

22:50 Speaker 3: report is not yet with the Congress, is not yet

22:54 Speaker 3: publicly available. This is the sort of stuff. We really

22:57 Speaker 3: need to hold their feet to the fire. This battle

22:59 Speaker 3: is not over, and the public out of the people listening,

23:04 Speaker 3: they need to write to the congressmen and the congresswomen

23:07 Speaker 3: and the congressional representatives and say this issue methods, because

23:11 Speaker 3: otherwise it'll be put back in a box for another

23:15 Speaker 3: seventy years.

23:16 Speaker 1: You know that story, That New York Times story by

23:18 Speaker 1: Julian Barnes, the pre bunking story that tried to throw

23:21 Speaker 1: cold water on the pending Up report, is a reminder

23:25 Speaker 1: of what the New York Times has done since the

23:28 Speaker 1: early nineteen sixties, which is crap all over the UFO subject.

23:31 Speaker 1: It's incredibly hostile, overtly hostile. Along with the Washington Post

23:36 Speaker 1: and most of the big newspapers they have been as well.

23:39 Speaker 1: The fact that Leslie Kane, that Ralph bloemathal Helene Cooper

23:43 Speaker 1: were able to get that story on, get it past

23:45 Speaker 1: their editors and get it in even though it had

23:47 Speaker 1: some problems and some pieces that were missing. It's an

23:51 Speaker 1: astonishing thing for them to have done it because it

23:53 Speaker 1: changed the media landscape.

23:56 Speaker 2: Bryce you're thought, George, you know we're talking about journalism

24:00 Speaker 2: here and this narrative. I think one of the problems

24:04 Speaker 2: we have is that journalists themselves are part of the

24:08 Speaker 2: spin anti UAP. We've touched on it here, but let

24:12 Speaker 2: me give you an example that strikes close to your heart.

24:15 Speaker 2: I think Senator Harry Reid died a year ago, basically

24:18 Speaker 2: December twenty eighth of last year, and one of the

24:22 Speaker 2: things Ross and I did in one of our very

24:23 Speaker 2: first shows is we went through all the news coverage

24:27 Speaker 2: of Harry Reid's obituaries and I don't recall finding a

24:31 Speaker 2: single one at the time. Maybe there was one mine, yes, well, yes,

24:36 Speaker 2: but of course you actually know what you're talking about.

24:38 Speaker 2: On that, everyone else managed to write about Harry Reid's

24:43 Speaker 2: life and career and not mentioned the very very important

24:47 Speaker 2: thing that not only was he helpful in investigating UAP,

24:52 Speaker 2: but he talked to you about it. It was something

24:54 Speaker 2: that he was interested into his dying days, and he

24:58 Speaker 2: was passionate about it, And yet they didn't mention that. Now,

25:01 Speaker 2: why is that if a famous person who passes away

25:06 Speaker 2: spends his years out of office interested in a single

25:10 Speaker 2: issue like that, why would that not be part of

25:12 Speaker 2: the story. And it's because those journalists who were in

25:15 Speaker 2: charge of writing that obituary probably didn't even know, and

25:19 Speaker 2: if they did know, they felt the stigma would attach

25:22 Speaker 2: to them if they started writing about it, so they

25:24 Speaker 2: gave it a pass. And I think those days we

25:27 Speaker 2: have to put in our past very quickly.

25:30 Speaker 1: Yeah, Senator Reid came to believe it, came to appreciate

25:34 Speaker 1: that the UFO story, the developments were in fact an

25:38 Speaker 1: important leg of his legacy. It was an important part

25:41 Speaker 1: of his career as a politician. I think it took

25:44 Speaker 1: a while for that to sink in, but he certainly

25:46 Speaker 1: acknowledged that before he passed on. I talked to him

25:49 Speaker 1: about it many times. And of course he and I

25:51 Speaker 1: had a secret conversation about UFOs for more than thirty years.

25:55 Speaker 1: And if it had not been for what he did,

25:58 Speaker 1: we wouldn't be having this conversation. Have been no New

26:00 Speaker 1: York Times story. There would have been no a TIP program,

26:03 Speaker 1: no ASSAP program, no UAP Task Force, or if they

26:06 Speaker 1: had been, it would have been some other name, and

26:08 Speaker 1: we might not have ever heard about it.

26:09 Speaker 2: You know, think about what you just said, though, here's

26:13 Speaker 2: a senator, the Majority leader, who's had a three decade

26:16 Speaker 2: long conversation with you about the topic of UFOs, and

26:21 Speaker 2: it's not a part of looking back over his life

26:25 Speaker 2: and trying to assess what his life and career meant.

26:29 Speaker 2: It's madness, and that says a lot about where we

26:33 Speaker 2: are today. The reason progress is slow and we keep

26:37 Speaker 2: thinking things are being put back in the box. Is

26:39 Speaker 2: because there are people that are trying to do that.

26:42 Speaker 2: Whether they're going to win or not, I think is doubtful,

26:45 Speaker 2: but it doesn't mean they can't slow down the role

26:48 Speaker 2: for a little for a few more years.

26:51 Speaker 1: I want to congratulate you guys again a year of

26:53 Speaker 1: doing the Need to Know podcasts. There is great stuff.

26:56 Speaker 1: I hope people will check it out. They could, you know,

26:58 Speaker 1: review watch them all, twenty five of them that you've done,

27:01 Speaker 1: and in the most recent one you did, you reviewed

27:03 Speaker 1: sort of some of the progress that's happened. And I

27:06 Speaker 1: thought one of the most interesting parts to me was

27:08 Speaker 1: all the people who have come out and said something

27:11 Speaker 1: about UFOs, the prominent people, directors of National Intelligence, the

27:15 Speaker 1: former CIA, had the you know presidents, you know, President Obama.

27:21 Speaker 1: I've got headlines that I saved from back when he

27:24 Speaker 1: was in the White House where they they dumped all

27:26 Speaker 1: over it. They were asked directly, you know, by the public, hey,

27:29 Speaker 1: what get to the bottom of this, what's going on?

27:31 Speaker 1: And they threw cold water on it, saying there's no

27:33 Speaker 1: evidence of any space aliens. You know, move along, folks,

27:36 Speaker 1: nothing to see here. President Obama's come a long way.

27:38 Speaker 1: He's changed. In fact, I was. I got a text

27:41 Speaker 1: from Tom DeLong, friend Tom DeLong, two days ago saying

27:45 Speaker 1: he sent me this note about Obama being involved in

27:48 Speaker 1: a production movie of a movie about Betty and Barney Hill.

27:51 Speaker 1: Now that is quite an about face, and I'm sure

27:54 Speaker 1: when I saw it, I thought, man, this is going

27:56 Speaker 1: to drive my friend Bryce's abel up the wall, because.

28:02 Speaker 2: Well, I'm not going to brief about Obama's interest. I'm

28:07 Speaker 2: glad to see President Obama taking a more active interest

28:11 Speaker 2: in this topic. It's it's absolutely important, and it's it's

28:16 Speaker 2: interesting to me that that after a lot of comments

28:20 Speaker 2: in the past where he's kind of put down the

28:23 Speaker 2: whole UAP topic, he now seems to be addressing it.

28:25 Speaker 2: And as you point out, I can't really speak for

28:27 Speaker 2: what the Obama production company is doing. All I know

28:31 Speaker 2: is from what I read is they're trying to do

28:33 Speaker 2: a Betty and Barney Hill movie, which of course I'm

28:36 Speaker 2: doing myself. So there's that.

28:38 Speaker 1: Well I know, That's what I meant is that you

28:40 Speaker 1: had been working on this and hoping to get something

28:42 Speaker 1: in production for a lot of years. So I thought, oh, man,

28:44 Speaker 1: here comes Obama stealing Brice's Rice's project out from under.

28:48 Speaker 2: I don't think. I don't look at it that way, George.

28:51 Speaker 2: I'm pretty confident and sanguine about this thing. It's a

28:54 Speaker 2: it's a free country. People in Hollywood pursue projects all

28:57 Speaker 2: the time. I don't need to remind any buddy that

29:00 Speaker 2: often projects that are about the same thing will be

29:04 Speaker 2: released at the same time. I mean to think about

29:05 Speaker 2: Armageddon and Deep Impact coming out in the same year

29:09 Speaker 2: and the same season. You know, I'm not worried about it.

29:12 Speaker 2: I've got the rights to the Captured book that was

29:16 Speaker 2: written by Kathleen Martin and Stanton Friedman, and that tells

29:19 Speaker 2: about the life and times of Betty and Barney, and

29:23 Speaker 2: it's important to me that I have that under option.

29:27 Speaker 2: And also I've done my own independent investigations into it

29:30 Speaker 2: and learn some new things. So you know, as I think,

29:33 Speaker 2: as the Obama sit with this a while, I'm fairly

29:36 Speaker 2: sure they're going to come to the same conclusion that

29:38 Speaker 2: I did, which is this isn't the kind of story

29:40 Speaker 2: you want to do without the family side of things,

29:42 Speaker 2: and that means going out and getting the rights. So

29:45 Speaker 2: that's what I've done. And I just think it's not

29:51 Speaker 2: a problem because either they're going to have to go

29:54 Speaker 2: get the rights, in which case they're going to have

29:55 Speaker 2: to talk to us, or they're not. And I'm not

29:58 Speaker 2: going to worry about it. I'm going to continue to

30:00 Speaker 2: make the film that we want to make Captured, and

30:04 Speaker 2: we've had offers. We turned one offer down, We're in

30:08 Speaker 2: conversations with other people, and we've got international interests, and

30:12 Speaker 2: it ain't over till it's over, So you know, let

30:15 Speaker 2: it go on.

30:16 Speaker 1: I mentioned about Ross and the Need to Know episode

30:19 Speaker 1: that you guys bring up a couple of names. Clapper,

30:21 Speaker 1: the former D and I Director of National Intelligence, John

30:24 Speaker 1: Ratcliffe another one who both of those guys that come

30:26 Speaker 1: out with what we would previously have considered alarming statements

30:30 Speaker 1: about UFOs, current D and I. Averril Haynes, you must

30:34 Speaker 1: have had those kinds of heart to heart off the

30:37 Speaker 1: record conversations with people at that level over the years,

30:41 Speaker 1: and must be some of you must be like a

30:44 Speaker 1: kid at Christmas in that they're now saying these things

30:47 Speaker 1: on the record on camera.

30:50 Speaker 3: That's the amazing thing about it, Georgia. There is this

30:52 Speaker 3: cognitive dissonance between what I'm being told privately by sometimes

30:57 Speaker 3: quite senior people, including in my own government, but also

31:00 Speaker 3: in yours, in the American government, and in the British

31:03 Speaker 3: and French governments, there's an acknowledgment, just a flat, simple acknowledgment,

31:08 Speaker 3: that this phenomenon is a mystery. It's real, it's technology,

31:12 Speaker 3: it's craft, it's not some natural phenomenon that can be

31:17 Speaker 3: easily dismissed. And I do think, you know, it's funny

31:21 Speaker 3: just to echo what you and Bryce have both been saying.

31:24 Speaker 3: There does need to be I think, on this fifth anniversary,

31:27 Speaker 3: a tribute paid to the New York Times and that

31:32 Speaker 3: team Ralph Blumenthal, Lesley Kine, Helene Couper for just doing

31:37 Speaker 3: that bloody story, because it really did. It put things

31:40 Speaker 3: on the map. And I am aware that there is

31:46 Speaker 3: a pushback happening. I'm being warned by my own sources

31:50 Speaker 3: that there is a very determined pushback, that the view

31:53 Speaker 3: has been taken by some in the Pentagon and the

31:56 Speaker 3: intelligence community that yes, okay, the Congress is demanding that

32:01 Speaker 3: we provide them with this information, but we're going to

32:04 Speaker 3: be as tough and as obdurate as possible, and as

32:06 Speaker 3: uncooperative as possible, and we're going to try and use

32:10 Speaker 3: all the classic spin cards that we can use, such

32:13 Speaker 3: as pre release briefings to select media, to try to

32:18 Speaker 3: minimize the coverage that this issue gets. And frankly, Mate,

32:22 Speaker 3: it's not going to work because the level of public

32:24 Speaker 3: interest is enormous. People now know that the jack is

32:30 Speaker 3: out of the box and you can't put it back

32:32 Speaker 3: in the box. And yes, we've got all these senior

32:36 Speaker 3: officials and the Pedagon itself, I mean the admissions that

32:40 Speaker 3: they made that these videos of unidentified aerial phenomena are real.

32:47 Speaker 3: There's a mystery they cannot explain. And that for the

32:51 Speaker 3: most powerful nation on the planet, you know, of all

32:54 Speaker 3: the technology, all of the sense or technology that the

32:57 Speaker 3: US and its allies like Australia you operate not only

33:02 Speaker 3: in the atmosphere but underwater and in the orbit. The

33:05 Speaker 3: fact that we don't know supposedly what these anomalists phenomena

33:10 Speaker 3: are that are displaying technological abilities might use ahead of

33:15 Speaker 3: human science.

33:16 Speaker 1: We were talking in the first hour with my guests

33:19 Speaker 1: Bryce and Ross about pushback, and I can tell you

33:21 Speaker 1: that it's real, but it also it works both ways.

33:25 Speaker 1: There is pushback. I think within the Pentagon by some

33:28 Speaker 1: who want to diminish public interest, congressional interest, media interest. Oh,

33:33 Speaker 1: we can explain those cases. You just got to give

33:35 Speaker 1: us enough time. But I could tell you that there's

33:38 Speaker 1: pushback too, as inquiries are made about crash retrievals, meta materials,

33:43 Speaker 1: craft bodies, things of that sort that I want to

33:45 Speaker 1: touch on in this hour. I think there's probably significant

33:49 Speaker 1: opposition to any of that stuff seeing the light of day, ever,

33:52 Speaker 1: but I can also tell you with a degree of

33:54 Speaker 1: certainty that there is pushback from some of the professionals

33:56 Speaker 1: inside the Pentagon who were part of the early your investigations,

34:01 Speaker 1: osap ATIP, the UAP task Force. They don't want their

34:04 Speaker 1: work to be diminished. They don't want someone to come

34:06 Speaker 1: along and with a wave of a hand say these

34:09 Speaker 1: cases July twenty nineteen off the West Coast, those are

34:12 Speaker 1: just Chinese drones, and they have pushed back to that.

34:15 Speaker 1: When they heard that that is what was underway, they

34:17 Speaker 1: pushed back and defended their work in some pretty heated

34:20 Speaker 1: closed door briefings. That's my understanding. Ross. I want to

34:24 Speaker 1: get your take on where things might go, what you

34:27 Speaker 1: expect from this next UAP report, and whether you are

34:30 Speaker 1: pessimistic or optimistic in general.

34:34 Speaker 3: I'm very pessimistic, to be honest, George, and I try

34:36 Speaker 3: not to be. My natural disposition is to be optimistic

34:39 Speaker 3: that I'm hearing. I mean, the thing that worries me is,

34:43 Speaker 3: like you, I'm talking to people who are thinking about

34:46 Speaker 3: coming forward as whistleblowers, and the message that they've got

34:50 Speaker 3: from the Congress is that key sections of the NDAA,

34:55 Speaker 3: the National Defense Authorization Act reforms about the UAP issue

35:00 Speaker 3: have been watered done before they were approved by the Congress,

35:04 Speaker 3: notably the fact that there was going to be independent

35:08 Speaker 3: oversight by the Inspector General. We were going to have

35:12 Speaker 3: a kind of an objective party overlooking whether or not

35:16 Speaker 3: whistleblowers were being fairly treated by the arrow the UAP

35:21 Speaker 3: Task Force. And also they've removed the civil right of

35:26 Speaker 3: litigation against reprisals. So anyway, anybody who was a whistleblower

35:32 Speaker 3: who suffered reprisals for speaking art would have had a

35:36 Speaker 3: civil right of to fight back against that reprisal, but

35:41 Speaker 3: that's been removed, and so I do worry that there's

35:45 Speaker 3: been an attempt in the Congress to try to fight

35:48 Speaker 3: back and water down these proposals, and my concern is

35:52 Speaker 3: to make sure that people feel free to come forward.

35:55 Speaker 3: And I had a conversation recently with somebody who told

35:59 Speaker 3: me of a shocking incident. It's an allegation that they

36:03 Speaker 3: saw a helicopter brought down by or in an incident

36:08 Speaker 3: involving a UFO, and they're a direct witness to that incident.

36:13 Speaker 3: They want to come forward to the Congress. They want

36:15 Speaker 3: to tell the Congress what they saw. Now, what do

36:18 Speaker 3: they do At the moment, we're waiting for the President

36:21 Speaker 3: to ratify the legislation, the NDAA laws, which will basically

36:25 Speaker 3: give them some degree of protection. But are they hearing

36:29 Speaker 3: acclamation from the Congress that this is a primary issue

36:32 Speaker 3: that they're concerned about, though they're not. I don't think

36:35 Speaker 3: there's been any spokesperson from the Congress, any congress person

36:39 Speaker 3: speaking since the May fifteenth hearings. We've had our token

36:43 Speaker 3: public hearing and it's gone away. And all of these

36:47 Speaker 3: these members of the Congress, Adam Schiff, who was making

36:51 Speaker 3: a lard noise about it last year, marked a Rubio

36:56 Speaker 3: gillibrand they've all gone very very quiet. The big question

37:00 Speaker 3: in the minds of the people who are thinking about

37:02 Speaker 3: coming forward is why why have they gone quiet what's

37:06 Speaker 3: been said behind the scenes? And I balance that with

37:11 Speaker 3: the fact that I'm also hearing that there may well

37:13 Speaker 3: have been private hearings where people have spoken privately to

37:17 Speaker 3: the Congress, which brings us to the other issue, which is,

37:21 Speaker 3: even if information is disclosed to the Congress, how much

37:26 Speaker 3: are we going to be told? And I don't think

37:28 Speaker 3: we're going to be told a lot. If there are

37:31 Speaker 3: retrieved craft, which is not an impossible possibility, seeing it's

37:35 Speaker 3: featured in the pages of the New York Times itself.

37:39 Speaker 3: If there are retrieved non human technologies that are in

37:43 Speaker 3: the possession of the US government or aerospace called private

37:47 Speaker 3: entities that are holding those on behalf of the US

37:50 Speaker 3: government in order to evade oversight, are we going to

37:53 Speaker 3: be told about it? I don't think we ever will be.

37:58 Speaker 1: I have my questions as well.

38:00 Speaker 3: Well.

38:00 Speaker 1: Bryce. If you are a CEO of a big aerospace

38:02 Speaker 1: company and you'd been given this stuff military passed it

38:06 Speaker 1: on to you to sort of stash it and hide

38:08 Speaker 1: it and maybe analyze it. Fifty years ago, you had

38:11 Speaker 1: this amazing technology that the whole world is interested in,

38:15 Speaker 1: would you just give it back. I wouldn't.

38:17 Speaker 2: No, no, I don't think I would, and I don't

38:20 Speaker 2: think the people that had it would do that. But look,

38:26 Speaker 2: there's a lot of different ways to look at this thing. Ross,

38:28 Speaker 2: by the way, plays the pessimist on need to know,

38:30 Speaker 2: and I play the optimism, which is ironic because I

38:36 Speaker 2: get depressed about the thing as much as anybody. I

38:39 Speaker 2: do think we need public hearings. But you know, one

38:41 Speaker 2: of the things I just wanted to point out because

38:43 Speaker 2: we were talking about it in the last segment and

38:45 Speaker 2: you mentioned how these high level intelligence people are talking.

38:49 Speaker 2: I think that's part of pushback. I mean, in the

38:53 Speaker 2: last year, basically two heads of the CIA and one

38:58 Speaker 2: head of the Director of Natural Intelligengens have spoken out

39:01 Speaker 2: about this. And I'll do this very fast, George, but

39:03 Speaker 2: I just think it's kind of important. We've had somebody

39:07 Speaker 2: speak from the Obama administration, the Clinton administration, and the

39:10 Speaker 2: Trump administration, and I'm just going to give a taste,

39:13 Speaker 2: all right. The Trump administration was d and I John Ratcliffe,

39:17 Speaker 2: who said, we have multiple censors that have been picking

39:19 Speaker 2: up these things. Some of these are unexplained phenomenon and

39:22 Speaker 2: there's actually quite a few more that have been made public.

39:25 Speaker 2: Obama's CIA director John Brennan said, I think some of

39:28 Speaker 2: the phenomenon we're seeing continue to be unexplained. It might,

39:32 Speaker 2: in fact be some type of phenomenon that is the

39:34 Speaker 2: result of something that we don't yet understand and wait

39:37 Speaker 2: for it, folks, and that could involve some type of

39:40 Speaker 2: activity that some might say constitutes a different form of life.

39:45 Speaker 2: That's coming from a CIA director Clinton. CIA director James

39:49 Speaker 2: Woolsey said in the middle of an interview, Well, there

39:52 Speaker 2: was one case in which a friend of mine was

39:54 Speaker 2: able to have his aircraft stop at forty thousand feet

39:57 Speaker 2: or so and not continue operating as a normal aircraft.

40:00 Speaker 2: What was going on? I don't know, does anybody know?

40:03 Speaker 2: So I guess what I'm saying is, I think the

40:05 Speaker 2: pushback doesn't have to come just from our elected representatives

40:10 Speaker 2: who are sitting in closed door meetings in Congress. These

40:15 Speaker 2: guys that spoke out had the highest level of security

40:20 Speaker 2: that we offer, at least I think for CIA and

40:25 Speaker 2: D and I, and they're speaking out about this thing.

40:28 Speaker 2: So I think there are a lot of people who

40:30 Speaker 2: do want to talk about this, and we are getting

40:33 Speaker 2: closer and closer to the day where somebody says something

40:38 Speaker 2: that opens the door a little bit more than can't

40:40 Speaker 2: be ignored. I really don't think those comments can be ignored,

40:43 Speaker 2: and hopefully some but some mainstream journalists might write an

40:47 Speaker 2: article about all these intelligence people who are doing it.

40:49 Speaker 2: But listen, we have work to do. We're not there,

40:53 Speaker 2: but we are further along than we ever were, and

40:57 Speaker 2: we seem to be moving in the right direction.

41:00 Speaker 1: When you talk about like John Brennan and Woolsey, those

41:03 Speaker 1: guys come forward make these astonishing statements. Did they know

41:06 Speaker 1: before and then lie about it or just ignore the topic,

41:10 Speaker 1: or did they not know really and paid to attention

41:13 Speaker 1: while they were at the top of their agencies and

41:15 Speaker 1: only got a briefing later when all the stuff broke

41:18 Speaker 1: out in the news media.

41:19 Speaker 2: What do you think, Well, it's interesting, I think they knew.

41:22 Speaker 2: If you listen to their quotes, it almost sounds like

41:28 Speaker 2: they didn't get the full briefing and that they're just

41:31 Speaker 2: sort of now that they're out of office, they're talking

41:34 Speaker 2: about what they did hear about and so whether they

41:39 Speaker 2: know the final truth or not, it seems unlikely, but

41:42 Speaker 2: they certainly know that something is going on.

41:44 Speaker 1: So ross you think they knew I do, George.

41:48 Speaker 3: It's interesting. I've been having conversations on exactly this issue.

41:51 Speaker 3: I was asking somebody in a position to know presidents briefed,

41:55 Speaker 3: and I was interested. I was trying to find out

41:58 Speaker 3: why Obama has suddenly taken such a close interest. And

42:03 Speaker 3: I've heard different stories. One is that he wasn't briefed

42:06 Speaker 3: while he was president, but he has been briefed after

42:09 Speaker 3: he became president. Because presidents, as you know, are allowed

42:12 Speaker 3: to get top secret briefings, they continue to get briefings

42:15 Speaker 3: on national security issues after they leave office, and then

42:19 Speaker 3: with various CIA directors and various heads of departments, it

42:24 Speaker 3: all boils down to who you are. I mean, there

42:27 Speaker 3: is a cardra of people. I know this sounds like

42:30 Speaker 3: paranoid conspiracy theory nonsense, but there really is a cadra

42:34 Speaker 3: of people whom I think are invested with the knowledge.

42:38 Speaker 3: It's been very carefully kept. And let me devil's advocate

42:42 Speaker 3: for a moment. I'm not the sort of journalist who

42:45 Speaker 3: dismisses out of hands the idea that things need to

42:48 Speaker 3: be protected for reasons of national security. Let's assume, just

42:53 Speaker 3: for a moment that it's true. What the New York

42:55 Speaker 3: Times is written about that there are retrieved non human

42:59 Speaker 3: technologogies and the possession of the United States. I would hope,

43:04 Speaker 3: and I would expect that the United States government would

43:07 Speaker 3: do its level best to achieve military superiority, strategic superiority

43:12 Speaker 3: over any potential enemy by developing that technology, by back

43:17 Speaker 3: engineering it, and by understanding it. And I would keep

43:20 Speaker 3: it secret as long as possible, as long as I could,

43:24 Speaker 3: and when it came to a confrontation with a potential enemy,

43:27 Speaker 3: as sadly we do face with both Russia and China

43:30 Speaker 3: at the moment, both of our countries, I would hope

43:33 Speaker 3: that they'd pull this out of a hat. So the

43:35 Speaker 3: best possible spin that I can put on this is

43:38 Speaker 3: that there is a very good reason for why the

43:41 Speaker 3: United States might be sitting on this issue, why it

43:44 Speaker 3: might be concealing it, because it basically wants to not

43:47 Speaker 3: show its hand. What I don't understand is there's a

43:51 Speaker 3: difference between acknowledging a non human intelligence on this planet

43:56 Speaker 3: and then acknowledging recovered technology. You can do one without

44:00 Speaker 3: acknowledging the other. And that's what I think we should see.

44:04 Speaker 3: That's my prediction for twenty twenty three. If my hope

44:08 Speaker 3: is that we will see some concession from the government

44:11 Speaker 3: that this isn't just anomalist technology in our atmosphere, in

44:15 Speaker 3: all this and underwater, that whatever this is, it's not human.

44:21 Speaker 2: Russ. Let me jump in here and just ask you

44:24 Speaker 2: to expound on one thing here. The idea that Barack

44:28 Speaker 2: Obama would not be briefed on this incredible topic while

44:31 Speaker 2: he was president, but then would be briefed under big

44:34 Speaker 2: secret afterwards just doesn't make sense to me. Why would

44:38 Speaker 2: any rational national security policy say, let's brief the guy

44:43 Speaker 2: about the big secret after he's out of office. Why

44:46 Speaker 2: would they do that?

44:47 Speaker 3: That's a bloody good question, Bryce, But I'm told that's

44:50 Speaker 3: the situation, and it's all about need to know Wellturally,

44:55 Speaker 3: I think I think there are some people in the

44:57 Speaker 3: national security establishment in America who lost site during the

45:01 Speaker 3: Cold War of who runs the government? The people listening

45:06 Speaker 3: to this audio run the government. It's government of the people,

45:09 Speaker 3: for the people, by the people. I studied your Constitution

45:13 Speaker 3: in my law school. One of the things I think

45:15 Speaker 3: is great about America is in shrines in its constitution

45:20 Speaker 3: the government is the people. You the people, The American

45:24 Speaker 3: people have the right. You own this country, it's yours,

45:29 Speaker 3: And sadly, what I think has happened is over the years,

45:32 Speaker 3: especially during the confrontations of the Cold War, a lot

45:37 Speaker 3: was done in the name of national security to suppress

45:40 Speaker 3: things that ought properly to be oversighted by the American people,

45:44 Speaker 3: and I think they have been kept from the Congress,

45:46 Speaker 3: and that's why we're seeing momentum in the Congress. But

45:50 Speaker 3: albeit begrudgingly by the Pentagon and the intelligence community, they

45:55 Speaker 3: are asking hard questions. The only question in my mind, though, is,

46:00 Speaker 3: let's say they do do a briefing to a top

46:03 Speaker 3: Senate Intelligence Committee of team or to the Armed Services Committee.

46:07 Speaker 3: Let's say that's all done in a secure skiff, in

46:11 Speaker 3: a top secret way. Will the public be told? Should

46:15 Speaker 3: the public be told? I worry that, yes, the Congress

46:19 Speaker 3: will get briefed, but I suspect that they may cop

46:23 Speaker 3: the line from the military. Oh, yes, we can't reveal

46:26 Speaker 3: a lot of this stuff for national security reasons, and

46:29 Speaker 3: you know, it's important that the public not be told before.

46:32 Speaker 1: I think that's already true, that's already happened, and that

46:35 Speaker 1: there have been briefings of that nature behind closed doors

46:38 Speaker 1: and classified fort a setting, and that some pretty amazing

46:42 Speaker 1: information has been shared. It's happened already and we haven't

46:46 Speaker 1: heard a peep about it, and I'm not sure we would.

46:48 Speaker 1: Here's my question to you. Let's say that the Congress

46:52 Speaker 1: gets told behind closed doors that the crash retrievals are real,

46:55 Speaker 1: that we've recovered these materials, it's not just bits and

46:59 Speaker 1: pieces of scout metal, but entire craft and maybe bodies,

47:03 Speaker 1: and that you know, they demand some information about where

47:06 Speaker 1: it is. Maybe a delegation goes to take a look

47:08 Speaker 1: at it. Does that answer the big questions I'll ask

47:12 Speaker 1: you first Bryce and then you Ross. Does it tell

47:14 Speaker 1: us where they're from, why they're here, what their interest

47:16 Speaker 1: is in us? Or is it still going to be

47:19 Speaker 1: a mystery after that information gets known by some within

47:23 Speaker 1: the government.

47:26 Speaker 2: Well, I don't think we probably know everything about it.

47:30 Speaker 2: I do think if I was going to make a

47:32 Speaker 2: prediction for twenty twenty three, I think it's possible that

47:36 Speaker 2: we are going to have the acknowledgment of crash retrieval.

47:39 Speaker 2: Your question, and that would be the sort of the

47:42 Speaker 2: game changer that sort of breaks down this wall of

47:44 Speaker 2: silence because you're going to acknowledge crashes, You've got to

47:48 Speaker 2: talk about all kinds of other things. I guess the

47:51 Speaker 2: question is what here's the problem. I believe the government

47:57 Speaker 2: has learned a lot about this over the year years,

48:00 Speaker 2: and they just don't share their work. I mean, that's

48:02 Speaker 2: been the policy since the beginning, and I think that

48:08 Speaker 2: what we're looking for in the future is to get

48:10 Speaker 2: the government to the place where I agree with Ross.

48:13 Speaker 2: You don't have to brief us on national security issues,

48:16 Speaker 2: and there's always room for some classified stuff, but it

48:20 Speaker 2: is time to share their work and at least tell

48:22 Speaker 2: us what their best guess is, because the gentlemen, the

48:26 Speaker 2: truth is between the three of us, the three and

48:28 Speaker 2: negos here tonight. None of us have you know, actually

48:32 Speaker 2: know what is going on. And there are people inside

48:36 Speaker 2: this discovery process who have better theories than we do

48:40 Speaker 2: because they're working with better data. And so that's going

48:44 Speaker 2: to be what happens in the future is the data increases,

48:47 Speaker 2: the theories get better, and then we begin to work

48:50 Speaker 2: together to try to figure out what this is. And

48:52 Speaker 2: that's what I look forward to as the forward progress

48:55 Speaker 2: of twenty twenty three into twenty twenty four.

48:58 Speaker 1: Totally agree. Bright Ross Coltart or my guests will open

49:02 Speaker 1: up the phone lines and the next segment so you

49:04 Speaker 1: can get into this conversation as well. It sort of

49:07 Speaker 1: goes to the kind of perspective that you have, is

49:10 Speaker 1: an optimistic or pessimistic. You know, with that UAP task

49:13 Speaker 1: Force prepared to report for Congress dating back to two

49:18 Speaker 1: thousand and four, one hundred and forty four UFO cases

49:21 Speaker 1: that have been investigated, and of the one hundred and

49:23 Speaker 1: forty four, one hundred forty three were unexplained unidentified, and

49:27 Speaker 1: it wasn't just because they didn't have enough information. Fat

49:30 Speaker 1: you look back at the history of the UFO topic,

49:34 Speaker 1: sometimes the best cases, the ones you have more information about,

49:37 Speaker 1: are the least explainable. Just having more info doesn't mean

49:41 Speaker 1: you automatically explain it the more info you have, and

49:43 Speaker 1: some of them the less you know because it doesn't

49:46 Speaker 1: fit in a known phenomena. So you know, the question

49:50 Speaker 1: is what this next report might be. We already know

49:54 Speaker 1: based on the reports of Friday's event, that hundreds of

49:56 Speaker 1: additional cases have come forward to arrow the current UFO

50:01 Speaker 1: organization with the Pentagon is investigating through and hundreds of

50:05 Speaker 1: those coming in from military witnesses and others. It's going

50:09 Speaker 1: to be hard to explain those away. I think that

50:11 Speaker 1: there are a lot of investigators working on this problem

50:14 Speaker 1: who are honest and really do want to get to

50:16 Speaker 1: the bottom of it and not cover it up, while

50:18 Speaker 1: as there are also people who would like it to

50:20 Speaker 1: all go away. My guests, Bryce's Abel Ross Coulthard are

50:24 Speaker 1: here for one more segment. We'll take some of your

50:26 Speaker 1: calls and see what else is on the minds of

50:28 Speaker 1: our listeners here on coast. We'll be right back. Two

50:31 Speaker 1: world class journalists who cover the UFO subject in detail.

50:35 Speaker 1: Bryce'sable Rouss, Colthart or my guest tonight. Their podcast called

50:38 Speaker 1: Need to Know is terrific. You should check it out.

50:40 Speaker 1: If you haven't seen it before, you could review the

50:43 Speaker 1: twenty five episodes they produced this year. It's good stuff.

50:46 Speaker 1: Let's go to the phone see what's on the minds

50:48 Speaker 1: of our listeners tonight, East of the Rockiest Patrick in

50:51 Speaker 1: Southern Maryland. Hi, Patrick, you're all with Bryce and Ross.

50:55 Speaker 5: Hi guys, thank you for taking my call. I just

50:57 Speaker 5: wanted to say real quick, Bryce Ross, I've watched every

51:02 Speaker 5: single one of your episode. Thank you very much for

51:05 Speaker 5: doing it. I love watching an episode when it's put out.

51:09 Speaker 5: And also, George, thank you for what you do. My

51:13 Speaker 5: question is to Bryce and Ross. Let's say, hypothetically, you

51:18 Speaker 5: guys get read in one day, right, and you get

51:20 Speaker 5: all the answers to the questions that you've ever asked,

51:23 Speaker 5: and you come to the conclusion that the government has

51:30 Speaker 5: been suppressing what they know about UFOs and the phenomena,

51:35 Speaker 5: et cetera for benevolent reasons, and you agree. Would that

51:40 Speaker 5: change what you do? Would it change what you report

51:43 Speaker 5: or what you say?

51:50 Speaker 2: Well, thisess Bryce, I'll jump in. I don't have to

51:53 Speaker 2: be read in the favor some more transparency on this.

51:56 Speaker 2: I'm not saying that I am comfortable with what might

52:01 Speaker 2: be revealed. We don't really know at this point. It

52:04 Speaker 2: might be a threat, it might have a downside, But

52:07 Speaker 2: I just think it's gone on long enough and what

52:09 Speaker 2: is time to see happen is that we own up

52:14 Speaker 2: to it, because at the end of the day, all

52:16 Speaker 2: of us together are smarter than just a few of us,

52:20 Speaker 2: and if we want to get to the real bottom

52:22 Speaker 2: of what this mystery is all about, we're going to

52:24 Speaker 2: have to own up to it and let the world

52:26 Speaker 2: get to work on it. So I'm not the young

52:29 Speaker 2: man I used to be, so I'm eager to see

52:32 Speaker 2: us get on with that in my lifetime because I'd

52:35 Speaker 2: like to I'd like to know. I need to know.

52:38 Speaker 2: And by the way, thank you for all the nice

52:40 Speaker 2: comments about needs to Know. And if people want to

52:43 Speaker 2: hear any of those twenty five episodes, it's need to

52:45 Speaker 2: Know dot today, So thank you.

52:49 Speaker 3: I'll just add to that. I mean, I think if

52:52 Speaker 3: I'm ready, and I'm basically agreeing to what security and

52:56 Speaker 3: intelligence officials would require to be ready to anything, especially

53:01 Speaker 3: something like compartmentalized top secret intelligence, which of course is

53:05 Speaker 3: never going to happen to a journalist, but to be

53:08 Speaker 3: read in you have to sign a non disclosure agreement.

53:11 Speaker 3: You have to essentially agree not to publish certain things.

53:16 Speaker 3: Now I would never do that. No journalist should or

53:19 Speaker 3: would ever agree to such a deal. The closest I've

53:23 Speaker 3: ever come is when I was embedded with American troops

53:27 Speaker 3: in combat zones in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and you'd

53:31 Speaker 3: sign this massive document that basically undertook that you would

53:36 Speaker 3: check first before you publish anything to make sure that

53:39 Speaker 3: you weren't compromising the safety of American soldiers or operational issues.

53:44 Speaker 3: I have no issue with that at all. If you're

53:46 Speaker 3: going to embed or work with military forces, you don't

53:49 Speaker 3: want to compromise their safety. So yeah, I mean, I

53:52 Speaker 3: don't think a read in situation would ever occur for

53:55 Speaker 3: a journal I could just never agree to that.

53:58 Speaker 1: Thanks for the call.

54:00 Speaker 2: But hey, George, I just wanted to point out that,

54:03 Speaker 2: and we don't need to go all into it. But

54:05 Speaker 2: back when I was doing Dark Skies, a couple of

54:07 Speaker 2: guys did show up at the Dark Sky's offices and

54:11 Speaker 2: in essence offer I guess a limited modified reading in

54:16 Speaker 2: of something because they wanted to give us information that

54:19 Speaker 2: we would put into the Dark Sky's program. And I

54:22 Speaker 2: didn't take that opportunity then, and you know, I don't

54:25 Speaker 2: know that I would now.

54:27 Speaker 1: Thanks Patrick for the call. West of the Rockies. Joe

54:29 Speaker 1: ed Bontana, Hi, Joe, what's on your mind?

54:33 Speaker 4: I had, George. I just called in because I wanted

54:38 Speaker 4: to let you know that I was offered a job

54:40 Speaker 4: in our UFO program in the United States by.

54:44 Speaker 1: Whom And what did they say? Hey, we got a

54:47 Speaker 1: UFO program, you want to work for it?

54:50 Speaker 4: No, I had known him while I was in the service.

54:53 Speaker 4: We were both flying F four phantoms together in the service.

54:57 Speaker 4: I got out and flew for the airlines, and he

55:01 Speaker 4: stayed in government service and ended up being the assistant

55:05 Speaker 4: director of the CIA in the Foreign Intelligence Division. Well,

55:10 Speaker 4: and I don't think I should probably say his name

55:12 Speaker 4: or my name, but when I was working in the

55:19 Speaker 4: cursor to the UFO program, which they have, it's kind

55:22 Speaker 4: of a magic program that has all sorts of different

55:24 Speaker 4: things where we have specialized vehicles, we had the normal

55:31 Speaker 4: secrecy channels, and we also had to sign a twenty

55:35 Speaker 4: year secrecy agreement and it was renewable every twenty years.

55:41 Speaker 4: And that's when I was contacted about coming into the

55:45 Speaker 4: UFO program, was on the first anniversary of when I'd

55:49 Speaker 4: left the other program. Was this at Los Alamos Line

55:52 Speaker 4: for the airline for twenty years?

55:54 Speaker 1: Is that Los Alamo's lab?

55:56 Speaker 2: Right?

55:59 Speaker 1: Did they tell you what you had?

56:00 Speaker 3: You? Yes?

56:02 Speaker 4: I would. I would have been doing things very similar

56:05 Speaker 4: to what Barb Lasara was doing.

56:08 Speaker 1: Tell you what, Joe, you don't want to give these

56:10 Speaker 1: names out on the air, but if you wouldn't mind

56:13 Speaker 1: hanging on and speaking to my Galdana there, I would

56:16 Speaker 1: like to reach out and continue the conversation.

56:19 Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, I'll be glad to you guys.

56:23 Speaker 2: I mean I know that I ask you.

56:25 Speaker 3: Can I ask you a question, Joe, I forgive me

56:27 Speaker 3: for interrupting. It's Ross Coultart here. I've spoken to other

56:31 Speaker 3: people like your good self. Can I ask you this

56:34 Speaker 3: if you had joined the program? And I know people

56:38 Speaker 3: who have, and they're loyal, good patriotic Americans, and they

56:43 Speaker 3: do question the level of secrecy that's attached to the

56:46 Speaker 3: technology that they're aware of. If you'd become aware, let's

56:51 Speaker 3: say you'd been briefed into a program to develop anti gravity,

56:54 Speaker 3: and you were aware that, as has been put to me,

56:59 Speaker 3: good science is being hindered by excessive secrecy, would you

57:04 Speaker 3: feel okay about testifying to Congress? How would you feel,

57:09 Speaker 3: as somebody who's stooped in that security world about coming

57:12 Speaker 3: forward and testifying.

57:15 Speaker 4: Well, I believe that we should all feel free enough

57:18 Speaker 4: to try to advance the human race. But if you've

57:21 Speaker 4: signed a secrecy a secrecy agreement that is a top

57:27 Speaker 4: secret code word above top secret, you're really precluded from

57:33 Speaker 4: saying anything, and so therefore you probably can't unless you.

57:39 Speaker 3: Want to say special. That's what's so special about this

57:44 Speaker 3: are Yeah, because it's good men like yourself who are

57:48 Speaker 3: now faced with this dilemma because the legislation allows the

57:53 Speaker 3: top secret compartmentalized intelligence a gag on you speaking to

57:58 Speaker 3: be overruled by the imperatives that the Congress be properly informed.

58:03 Speaker 3: So you are given protections. Everybody in the program is

58:07 Speaker 3: given protections under these excellent new laws. Not as excellent

58:11 Speaker 3: as they could have been, but what Chris Mellan and

58:14 Speaker 3: Lui la Zonda have achieved by pushing for these laws

58:17 Speaker 3: in the Congress is really quite momentous because people with

58:21 Speaker 3: these gags, these national security prohibitions are now able to

58:25 Speaker 3: come forward. And that's what's so exciting.

58:28 Speaker 1: Sure, thanks for the call. Hang on a second that

58:31 Speaker 1: Donald will get some information and maybe you can You

58:34 Speaker 1: and I can continue to talk later. We're going to

58:36 Speaker 1: the Wildcard line. Brendan and Austin. Hi, Brendan, you're on

58:39 Speaker 1: with Bryce and Ross.

58:41 Speaker 6: Hey guys, can you hear me?

58:42 Speaker 1: Yes?

58:44 Speaker 6: Okay, awesome, appreciate it. So I just wanted to say,

58:47 Speaker 6: for anybody who hasn't already, you need to sign up

58:49 Speaker 6: for a Mystery Wire podcasts for anywhere that you haven't already.

58:54 Speaker 6: And I also wanted to say that for any truckers

58:58 Speaker 6: who have been shown anything or seen anything for underground

59:03 Speaker 6: bases or any bases, to contact people at Mystery Wire

59:07 Speaker 6: and tell them your experiences. And the reason I was calling, oh,

59:11 Speaker 6: one more thing, super quick.

59:12 Speaker 2: I have a quick theory.

59:14 Speaker 6: The reason we have they have lights on the UAPs

59:17 Speaker 6: maybe is because that they use AI to measure the

59:21 Speaker 6: distance between the lights so that they can fly really

59:24 Speaker 6: quickly in formation. That's just an idea. But the reason

59:27 Speaker 6: I was calling was because when Snowden, Edward Snowden had

59:31 Speaker 6: released his documents, there was documents in there that were

59:34 Speaker 6: about the FBI that had images that had been debunked

59:42 Speaker 6: of UAPs and UFOs and stuff like that. So yeah,

59:45 Speaker 6: we're talking about pushback. And I was saying, if you

59:47 Speaker 6: go back to the to the files with Edward Snowden,

59:51 Speaker 6: there was pushback with the FBI all the way back then,

59:55 Speaker 6: and we didn't get the full things. We just got

59:57 Speaker 6: the images. But I encourage everybody to look at up.

1:00:00 Speaker 1: Thanks Gaith, Thanks Brendan. Do either of you know of

1:00:03 Speaker 1: I don't recall what might have been in the Snowden

1:00:06 Speaker 1: documents about UFO UAP do either of you know.

1:00:10 Speaker 3: I, as far as I know, he said publicly that

1:00:14 Speaker 3: he looked but didn't find anything, and he strongly doubted

1:00:17 Speaker 3: that there was anything there because he had super user

1:00:21 Speaker 3: access to the systems of the NSA, and he says

1:00:25 Speaker 3: he actively looked for documents inside the UNSA that would

1:00:29 Speaker 3: link to UFOs and he actually came away skeptical that

1:00:33 Speaker 3: there were such documents.

1:00:34 Speaker 1: Because he went, well, he didn't find the ass app documents.

1:00:38 Speaker 1: I guess Thedia didn't share them with an essay then,

1:00:41 Speaker 1: because they were real. There was a bunch of them.

1:00:43 Speaker 1: What were you going to say, Bryce.

1:00:44 Speaker 2: I was just going to say, that's how I as

1:00:47 Speaker 2: Ross was saying that, that's how I remember the story,

1:00:51 Speaker 2: and I was hoping at the time that he would

1:00:54 Speaker 2: have found something, but I don't think you did.

1:00:56 Speaker 1: We're going to Bill in Los Angeles. Hey, Bill, how

1:00:59 Speaker 1: you doing all with Rice and Ross and guests.

1:01:04 Speaker 7: George, you rightly criticized the Washington Post scant coverage of

1:01:08 Speaker 7: UAPs of late, and as a former mainstream newspaper writer myself,

1:01:13 Speaker 7: I'd like to note just to balance that that the

1:01:16 Speaker 7: Washington Post headline on July twenty eighth, nineteen fifty two

1:01:20 Speaker 7: was approximately, quote air force jets chase saucers over capital unquote.

1:01:26 Speaker 4: That's how far they've.

1:01:27 Speaker 7: They've swallowed the government line since then. And I'd just

1:01:33 Speaker 7: like to add that I think there's enough objective, empirical

1:01:36 Speaker 7: evidence and professional witnesses such that we don't need the

1:01:40 Speaker 7: current labdog media clowns or their government masters like CIA

1:01:45 Speaker 7: directors of all people to conclude that trans medium aircraft

1:01:49 Speaker 7: doing fifty eight thousand miles per hour in two thousand

1:01:53 Speaker 7: and four ain't from our neighborhood.

1:01:58 Speaker 2: I agree with that.

1:01:59 Speaker 3: True.

1:02:01 Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we're all on the same page on

1:02:03 Speaker 1: that bill. I was also to pointing out the Washington

1:02:06 Speaker 1: Post had a great story in the seventies about those

1:02:08 Speaker 1: overflights over the nuclear bases. They broke a story based

1:02:12 Speaker 1: on FOYA documents, I think about these nuclear bases on

1:02:15 Speaker 1: the US Canadian border that were visited by UFOs one

1:02:18 Speaker 1: after another over a couple of week period. So they

1:02:21 Speaker 1: have done some good stories over the years, but in

1:02:23 Speaker 1: general they're pretty hostile. Thanks for the call.

1:02:25 Speaker 2: In twenty ten when there was the National Press Club

1:02:29 Speaker 2: conference where they talked about the overflights at nuclear bases.

1:02:35 Speaker 2: The Washington Post sent a lifestyle reporter to cover it,

1:02:38 Speaker 2: and he began his report by talking about the chocolate

1:02:42 Speaker 2: chip cookies that were served at the press club.

1:02:44 Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the good stuff. I'll tell you what. There's

1:02:47 Speaker 1: a book by the late Terry Hanson. It's called The

1:02:50 Speaker 1: Missing Times. Anyone who's interested in the UFO topic or

1:02:53 Speaker 1: media and how news media have covered this over the

1:02:57 Speaker 1: years and want to know if they've been complacent or

1:03:00 Speaker 1: implicit in the cover up. That book is terrific. You

1:03:02 Speaker 1: can find it. It's not out of print. You can

1:03:04 Speaker 1: find it on Amazon and a couple other places. So

1:03:07 Speaker 1: check that out. Try to get one more call in.

1:03:09 Speaker 1: We're going to South Carolina. Burry, old buddy, old pal.

1:03:13 Speaker 1: How you do it?

1:03:15 Speaker 4: Hey, Hey, George?

1:03:18 Speaker 2: Yes, Oh this Corneese and Alexandria.

1:03:21 Speaker 1: I see, I was going to Burry in South Carolina.

1:03:25 Speaker 2: We'll go to Berry.

1:03:29 Speaker 1: Okay, if we got Barry on the.

1:03:31 Speaker 4: Line, it's still Cornees.

1:03:36 Speaker 1: Thank you, Thanks, Cornelias. We're going to move on. I

1:03:39 Speaker 1: want to Okay, Bryce and Ross, we got about two

1:03:43 Speaker 1: minutes left or so, you guys want to talk about

1:03:45 Speaker 1: anything else that might be coming down the line. What

1:03:47 Speaker 1: you're looking for in twenty twenty three, Bryce, Well, I think.

1:03:52 Speaker 2: Twenty twenty three, if I think I'm speaking for the

1:03:55 Speaker 2: three of us, that all of us have our own

1:03:57 Speaker 2: confidential sources, some of which overlap, although we don't know,

1:04:01 Speaker 2: but they all seem to be talking about crash wreckage,

1:04:05 Speaker 2: something Ross and I have discussed. So I actually think

1:04:08 Speaker 2: that crash wreckage probably is what many of those closed

1:04:11 Speaker 2: door hearings have been talking about, and I look forward

1:04:16 Speaker 2: in twenty twenty three to possibly seeing that. But I

1:04:18 Speaker 2: just wanted to end by just saying we never really

1:04:21 Speaker 2: talked about all the things that happened in twenty twenty two.

1:04:24 Speaker 2: Here's a quick run. We had the May seventeenth hearing,

1:04:27 Speaker 2: which was the Congressional hearing. We have a NASA investigation

1:04:32 Speaker 2: which began this year. We have the October thirty first

1:04:36 Speaker 2: non report that is about to become a report, and

1:04:39 Speaker 2: we had the National Defense Act language put in. We

1:04:44 Speaker 2: even had Alessando declaring that the upology must die.

1:04:48 Speaker 1: So it was a busy year, NASA busy in their

1:04:51 Speaker 1: next year, Yeah, NASA got involved too, And you know

1:04:54 Speaker 1: there's another big development. Ryan Graves is heading up an

1:04:57 Speaker 1: investigation on behalf of the AIAI that I think could

1:05:00 Speaker 1: be as big as any of these things.

1:05:04 Speaker 3: Yeah perheap, Yeah, I agree. I think the commercial pilots,

1:05:07 Speaker 3: our friend Ben Hanson's done some fantastic work this year

1:05:10 Speaker 3: that should be acknowledged on the continuing reports of commercial

1:05:14 Speaker 3: pilots who are seeing anomalous objects, and despite the debunkers

1:05:19 Speaker 3: gloriously tying themselves in knots to try and shoot it

1:05:22 Speaker 3: all down, the simple fact is they're still unexplained. And

1:05:26 Speaker 3: the other favorite of mine is the ongoing revelations about

1:05:30 Speaker 3: those strange objects that stalked US warships off the coast

1:05:35 Speaker 3: of southern California in twenty nineteen. They tried to call

1:05:39 Speaker 3: them Chinese drones. That explanation didn't wash. Ron Moldfey didn't

1:05:43 Speaker 3: even try that one again this time in the press

1:05:45 Speaker 3: briefing last week. But the simple fact is that the

1:05:48 Speaker 3: documents that have been revealed by for example, the Drive

1:05:52 Speaker 3: and the great work done by Jeremy Corbel, there's objects

1:05:56 Speaker 3: hovering and flying near Navy vessels that sparked a huge investigation.

1:06:02 Speaker 3: The Navy investigated it wasn't civilian activity. It wasn't US

1:06:05 Speaker 3: military operations. There's only two possibilities. Either it's a foreign

1:06:10 Speaker 3: adversary or it's something else.

1:06:14 Speaker 1: All right on that will end, Ross Altard, Bryce Zabel,

1:06:17 Speaker 1: thank you guys so much. Need to know if folks

1:06:20 Speaker 1: haven't heard it, they need to check it out. And

1:06:22 Speaker 1: please keep me in the loop fellas.

1:06:24 Speaker 2: It's been a pleasure, George, thanks for having us.

1:06:26 Speaker 1: All right, we'll talk to you again.