Steve Bassett On The HILL: UFO Truth Embargo & Disclosure Efforts
Visit Steves Websit (PRG-Non Profit): Paradigmresearchgroup.org
Steve on X: x.com/@SteveBassett
Closed Door Briefing Between TDP, Bob Salas and Congresswoman Nancy Mace: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpKOz4vbu0w&t=343s
TDP on Youtube: www.youtube.com/@totaldisclosure/subscribe
TDP on X: x.com/@disclosurepod
TDP's Website: TDP WEBSITE
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/total-disclosure-podcast--5975113/support.
CONTACT TDP DIRECTLY For Collaboration, Use of Segments/clips, or any other media produced by “TDP” —[email protected]
Special Thank you to all of our PODCAST/YouTube Channel Members for your continued support, and dedication to seeking the truth, together. We can’t do this WITHOUT YOU!
-COPYRIGHT-2020-
Copyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Total Disclosure Podcast Copyright 2020 and … segments, early access to interviews, and a yearly gift autographed by yours truly!thank you in advance now, Let's explore the unknown together!
Speaker 1: Welcome to other disclosure across our platforms, where we explore
Speaker 1: the mysteries of the unknown, from sightings to conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: We dive deep into the unexplained occurrences in our skies.
Speaker 1: If you're passionate about exploring the unknown and are intrigued
Speaker 1: by the possibility of non human intelligence, then you're in
Speaker 1: the right place. Don't forget to smash that like button
Speaker 1: share with your friends, your family, the Grays, just not
Speaker 1: with the CIA. All right, subscribe, stay up to date,
Speaker 1: click the bell so you don't miss any podcasts or
Speaker 1: videos that we have to offer. We have a bunch
Speaker 1: of cool little segments coming out from the UAP hearing
Speaker 1: that was on November thirteenth. Oddly enough, tonight we're supposed
Speaker 1: to have Chrisy Newton on the show. She came down
Speaker 1: with a bit of a sickness. So I called a
Speaker 1: good friend of mine and asked him to come on
Speaker 1: the show for about the hundredth time over the course
Speaker 1: of the time total disclosures it existed. I also had
Speaker 1: the pleasure of meeting him in person for the first
Speaker 1: time on November thirteenth at those UAP hearings, and he
Speaker 1: was a part of our closed door meeting with Rob
Speaker 1: Salice and Nancy Mace. Mister Stephen Steven, that's it all right, Steve,
Speaker 1: Welcome back.
Speaker 2: Steve to my friends. Yes, Tyler, Hi, it's great to
Speaker 2: be with you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So listen, I wanted to start this off because
Speaker 1: as great as the things that you and I have
Speaker 1: been working on together, you know, the no remember thirteenth hearings,
Speaker 1: everything that happened, all that went away super quickly, and
Speaker 1: all that people are talking about right now is these
Speaker 1: drone swarms. Now, I just want to get your intake
Speaker 1: on that before we dive into the to the real
Speaker 1: subject and real disclosure efforts. What's going on?
Speaker 2: Well, to be sure, the developments from the hearings and
Speaker 2: on the thirteenth and nineteenth haven't gone away. They're out there,
Speaker 2: and where they're out there is media coverage. As you know,
Speaker 2: I have a print media archive and I'm logging any
Speaker 2: articles and there have been dozens and dozens of articles
Speaker 2: and those are not going away. But obviously there's a
Speaker 2: whole lot else happening in the world in the US
Speaker 2: right now, so we go with the flow. But in
Speaker 2: our world, in the et issue, things are happening as well.
Speaker 2: And I've been watching the drone thing kind of slowly unfold.
Speaker 2: There's always been things like that happening, the odd sighting
Speaker 2: here there, whatever, they turn up online, lights in the sky,
Speaker 2: things like I get it. I don't spend a lot
Speaker 2: of time with that. ET's have been proven. They're here,
Speaker 2: non human tech, whatever hell you want to call them.
Speaker 2: My job is not to prove it. It's already proven.
Speaker 2: My job is to help get the confirmation from our president,
Speaker 2: which is what opens everything up. Big deal. Okay, But
Speaker 2: there's something that has emerged now that's gone on for
Speaker 2: several years, that is now really requires some attention and
Speaker 2: an analysis, and it is being referred to because there's
Speaker 2: always got to be a named for these things, drone swarms.
Speaker 2: So we'll call them drone swarms. Now, drones are amazing.
Speaker 2: They continue to get more amazing all the time. You
Speaker 2: may have seen recently a display drone display. There was
Speaker 2: some holidays and it might be I think it was
Speaker 2: in China. Several thousand drones were launched, operating on GPS
Speaker 2: right technology that allows them to keep precisely positioned, and
Speaker 2: they're creating amazing displays in the sky changing and forming.
Speaker 2: Now it's not like a it's not like a holograms.
Speaker 2: It's essentially they're acting like pixels of light, and yet
Speaker 2: there are thousands of them working in pure concert. I
Speaker 2: have to assume the wind conditions were absolutely zero. I
Speaker 2: can't imagine doing this in a win. But they're impressive. Okay, good,
Speaker 2: we get it. The drones that are being referred to
Speaker 2: here are essentially non piloted craft. If there's a pilot,
Speaker 2: it's not a drone. That's real simple. Okay. It can be.
Speaker 2: It can have an entity or a person controlling it
Speaker 2: from afar, or it can be pre programmed to f
Speaker 2: without a third party person or individual directing it. But
Speaker 2: if there's no pilot in it, it's a drum. Okay.
Speaker 2: So that's straightforward. So what is unusual about what's happening
Speaker 2: and why it may be a big, big deal. Is
Speaker 2: that not simply because people are paying attention. Because video
Speaker 2: of everything now can get put on the net instantly
Speaker 2: and spread. If something's going on, somebody's filming it. It's
Speaker 2: turning up somewhere great usually isolated stuff, nothing profound, but
Speaker 2: images and video of these swarms have been making their
Speaker 2: way into the public domain. Going back a number of years.
Speaker 2: One of the earliest examples of the phenomena that we
Speaker 2: are talking about tonight, or swarms of drums around ships.
Speaker 1: Ships.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is a destroyer, and it came up. It
Speaker 2: turned up. People were saying, what is it, what's going on?
Speaker 2: The usual confusion, government saying that there's nothing to this
Speaker 2: usual stuff and it could be fake and so forth.
Speaker 2: All right, fine, I noted, it moved on, there were
Speaker 2: other matters to attend it. But then more events started happening.
Speaker 2: As we get closer, they seem to be spreading drone swarms,
Speaker 2: not just about ships, but are around bases, military bases,
Speaker 2: other sensitive facilities. And the reason and the government has
Speaker 2: admitted it. Right, there's these swarms and saying, well, why
Speaker 2: on earth would the government do that? Well, we're not
Speaker 2: talking that. This is a new time. And so if
Speaker 2: something is swarming around a base, unless that base is
Speaker 2: in the middle of the desert, there's other communities around it,
Speaker 2: there are people living near it, and they got everybody's
Speaker 2: got cameras and they film everything they see. And so
Speaker 2: these swarms have been filmed by citizens and so naturally
Speaker 2: that gets up on the net, and what are you
Speaker 2: going to do? Well, the government does the best you can.
Speaker 2: In this case, the best you can is we don't
Speaker 2: know what they are right right? Wow, So let's know.
Speaker 2: I started thinking about that and going, wait a minute,
Speaker 2: let's just apply some basic logic to this, and where
Speaker 2: does that basic logic take us? And I recently to
Speaker 2: this morning. It's interesting that you got in touch with me,
Speaker 2: I posted to my Twitter account. Please follow and join
Speaker 2: Paradigm Research Group dot org. They handle us at Steve
Speaker 2: Bassett and I posted a rather lengthy post. And what
Speaker 2: I'm gonna do is I'm gonna read you the post
Speaker 2: because it says much more concisely what I can freelance
Speaker 2: to you right now. So I think this will be
Speaker 2: pretty easy to follow. People will get it. Here's what
Speaker 2: I posted this morning. All right, here is a suggested
Speaker 2: logic train regarding a recent phenomena. One Those with a
Speaker 2: need to know within the US government have known about
Speaker 2: a technological non human presence in our world for decades.
Speaker 2: I think that's absolutely proven fact. Two devices of either
Speaker 2: human or non human origin, referred to as drones are
Speaker 2: swarming US military ships, bases, and other sensitive areas. That
Speaker 2: is fact three, this is not permitted, and such objects,
Speaker 2: if known to be of human origin, would be shot
Speaker 2: down or captured. That I believe is absolutely true. Certainly
Speaker 2: happy to discuss it. Number four, let me finish the
Speaker 2: whole thing. The destruction or capturing of these objects is
Speaker 2: not being reported. That is true right. Number five. Therefore,
Speaker 2: the objects are of non human origin and aggressive action
Speaker 2: toward them is either viewed as dangerous or useless. Case closed.
Speaker 2: And then I posted this. Now this leads to the
Speaker 2: most important aspect of the phenomena, why is it happening?
Speaker 2: And here the logic train has to pause and speculation begins.
Speaker 2: In that regard, I offer this consideration. The time frame
Speaker 2: of this extraordinary new development closely corresponds with the passage
Speaker 2: of four pieces of UAP legislation and a series of
Speaker 2: UAP related congressional briefings. In other words, the collapse of
Speaker 2: the truth embargo. If in fact, this recent phenomenon is
Speaker 2: connected to the disclosure process, it is worth considering these
Speaker 2: events are a message from this technological non human presence,
Speaker 2: get it done. And I Twitter attached this or you
Speaker 2: know attached this tag. This rather to Nancy Mace, Tim
Speaker 2: Burchett Paulina Luna, Darren Moskowitz, Jamie Raskin, Growthman, Mark Warner,
Speaker 2: Senator Schumer, Marco Rubio, Senator Jillibrand, Mike Grounds, Eric Burlison,
Speaker 2: Representative Ogles and Journey Ownst Representative Garcia, Representative Carson, and
Speaker 2: represent in AOC because I followed them all and I
Speaker 2: wanted that to turn up in their notifications box. Yes,
Speaker 2: now you see my thinking on this. What are your thoughts?
Speaker 1: Well, I just wanted to say the oh why is
Speaker 1: my camera? So I just well, I just wanted to
Speaker 1: say that anyone who so I have I have commercial drones,
Speaker 1: and if you get into say, say you're flying your
Speaker 1: drone and you come into contact with any restricted airspace
Speaker 1: any at all, the drone takes itself over and returns
Speaker 1: to sender. So any commercial drone.
Speaker 2: Will not.
Speaker 1: Will not be able to fly into restricted airspaces of
Speaker 1: any kind, whether it's just restricted as as you know,
Speaker 1: for an airport or a military base or this or
Speaker 1: that government research facilities. So the ones that are being
Speaker 1: seen around bases and ships, those are the ones that
Speaker 1: I find to be the most compellent.
Speaker 2: Of course, now, of course the drone has to be
Speaker 2: programmed to respond to certain texts that are connected to
Speaker 2: these spaces, which literally triggered that response. Now you could
Speaker 2: take that out of it software, so it wouldn't do that.
Speaker 2: Let me give you an example. About six or seven
Speaker 2: years ago, somebody was having some fun with the drone
Speaker 2: here in DC and it got away from them, right,
Speaker 2: and it flew over the White House. That person was
Speaker 2: arrested and was able to explain this was an accident
Speaker 2: and so forth. All right, now this is just a
Speaker 2: little drone. Let's be clear. If you go and read
Speaker 2: the reports, and I have the articles up on my website,
Speaker 2: Powerdigresearchgroup dot org. Go to the media archive under resources.
Speaker 2: They are being described by the people shooting the film
Speaker 2: as of different sizes small up to the size of
Speaker 2: a car. Right, I assure you a commercial drone the
Speaker 2: size of a car would be very very expensive. And
Speaker 2: the bigger the drone, the more of a problem you
Speaker 2: would have. Fly a drone the size of a car
Speaker 2: over the White House, my friend, and you're going to
Speaker 2: be charged with a serious crime, and if you don't
Speaker 2: have a damn good lawyer, you're going to jail for
Speaker 2: a number of years. And so again, there is a
Speaker 2: fundamental logic to this that leads to the conclusion that
Speaker 2: I'm talking about until we know more. Now, a video
Speaker 2: did turn up which I had not been able to analyze.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't analyze this stuff hasn't been analyzed
Speaker 2: or taken apart too much. But it purports to show
Speaker 2: an attempt to shoot these things down to no avail.
Speaker 2: Again these days, what do you say to that other
Speaker 2: than there's a logic to it, because if they could
Speaker 2: shoot them down, they would, and if it pointless, they're
Speaker 2: not going to do it. They're not going to be
Speaker 2: firing stuff all over the place out of say a
Speaker 2: base right knowing that they can't hit them, and have
Speaker 2: the shells what landing somewhere in the community, landing on
Speaker 2: somebody's barbecue. So again that's logical. But is that film valid?
Speaker 2: I don't know. But something profound is going on, and
Speaker 2: it's not just going on here. It's happening in the UK,
Speaker 2: it may be happening in dozens of nations. If it's
Speaker 2: happening in China or Russia, I think it's fair to
Speaker 2: say they're not going to talk about it. You're not
Speaker 2: going to get film on that On Twitter and that's
Speaker 2: being held. And if it's true, if that should leak
Speaker 2: out that like China, Russia, other countries that we haven't
Speaker 2: heard from yet are getting the same phenomena, then you've
Speaker 2: got something along the lines of what happened in the
Speaker 2: movie Close Encounters of the Third kind. One are the
Speaker 2: greats of all time, And there was a moment when
Speaker 2: everybody in the world was hearing a tone, right, or
Speaker 2: at least huge portions of the world, we're hearing the
Speaker 2: same tone, and they were reacting to it. Now, that
Speaker 2: was very benignish. This is not. But again, they're not
Speaker 2: attacking the base, they're not destroying the ship. And let
Speaker 2: me be clear, if anybody's paying attention to the Ukraine
Speaker 2: War knows that the vast majority of hardware, tanks and
Speaker 2: motorized vehicles that are being destroyed in that war being
Speaker 2: destroyed by drones. Drones, you know, they're militarized tones with explosives,
Speaker 2: and so a couple of drones like that could seek
Speaker 2: a billion dollar destroyer, right, And so the idea that
Speaker 2: they're just well, you know, they're not doing anything, this
Speaker 2: is film them. Yeah, let's don't talk about this, please, folks,
Speaker 2: don't insult our intelligence and so something big is going on.
Speaker 2: And if it in fact is the case, that the
Speaker 2: ETS are going out of their way now, not to
Speaker 2: mention just drone swarms. You've got sightings all over the
Speaker 2: damn place. People are filming and filming and filming faster
Speaker 2: than I think people can concoct, you know, and you know,
Speaker 2: AI could be helping some of this, but overall, the
Speaker 2: sense is something is heading somewhere. There is a huge
Speaker 2: build up of engagement. Why I would speculate that the
Speaker 2: ETS are either anticipating that we're just about to end
Speaker 2: the truth embargo and the world is about to learn
Speaker 2: formally finally that they've got company, or they are tired
Speaker 2: of waiting and for one reason or another they're trying
Speaker 2: to goose the process. That's just a thought I'm putting
Speaker 2: out now.
Speaker 1: What I find to be I don't know if I
Speaker 1: am drawing conclusions here, but I find it very, very
Speaker 1: peculiar that after the hearings on November thirteenth, you know,
Speaker 1: you and I we went took that closed door meeting
Speaker 1: with Nancy Mays. Obviously the military angle, the nuclear angle
Speaker 1: that was on full display, and all of a sudden
Speaker 1: drones are swarming, not well, yeah, let's say swarming growing off. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're showing up everywhere and flying with impunity right seemingly.
Speaker 2: But it's been going on for years. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: been going for years, so I'm not I wouldn't want
Speaker 2: associate a special connection there. They've been going on for
Speaker 2: some time. And and but look, I don't you know,
Speaker 2: I don't know how closely the ET's monitor what's going on.
Speaker 2: I don't think they're reading my Twitter post. But the
Speaker 2: fact that is that one of the most significant developments
Speaker 2: is sixty years after the events took place, actually fifty
Speaker 2: fifty five years after the events took place in which
Speaker 2: our ICBM missiles are shut down in the presence of
Speaker 2: a uap UFO ET whatever I want to call it,
Speaker 2: and thirty years after some of the officers present firsthand
Speaker 2: when it took place. Finally, the Congress is looking at
Speaker 2: this seriously. Finally, and you might say, oh my god,
Speaker 2: what could be more important than nuclear missiles being shut
Speaker 2: down by a read for reasons that are not connected
Speaker 2: to a human source. Why hasn't this been all over
Speaker 2: the place? Good question? And the answer is actually not complicated.
Speaker 2: There's been a lot of things that have happened regarding
Speaker 2: this phenomena over the years, right and witnesses have come forward,
Speaker 2: documents have turned up, and this and that and everything else,
Speaker 2: and all of it was irritating to the Department of Defense,
Speaker 2: irritating to the managers of the truth Embargo. But overall,
Speaker 2: they obviously were able to deal with it. They hadn't,
Speaker 2: we wouldn't still have a truth inmbargo to this day.
Speaker 2: But there is one set of events and one set
Speaker 2: of witnesses that pose the greatest challenge to the truth
Speaker 2: Embargo and always have. That is the Sack based commanders
Speaker 2: and others who were present to the tampering of our
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons systems, the shutting down of our ICBMs, interfering
Speaker 2: and intercepting gummy warheads at eight thousand miles an hour,
Speaker 2: filmed by an Air Force officer who came forward, and
Speaker 2: so forth. These witnesses are extraordinarily challenging, and so the
Speaker 2: DoD Department of Defense had a real problem with respect
Speaker 2: to those witnesses. And so how did how is it
Speaker 2: that we haven't heard? Here's the best answer I can
Speaker 2: give you. I know some of these people I've talked
Speaker 2: to the lead witness, the person who has kept this going,
Speaker 2: and that of course is Robert Sallas. I've read the
Speaker 2: fundamental book UFOs and Nukes by Robert Hays and seeing
Speaker 2: the doc and so forth, and I can say that
Speaker 2: they haven't been threatened in any anyway. That's really serious.
Speaker 2: Bob Sallas came forward in nineteen ninety four because after
Speaker 2: holding onto it for nearly thirty years, the vast majority
Speaker 2: of the many hundreds, if not a couple thousand people
Speaker 2: have been well hundreds that have been witnessed to first
Speaker 2: hand shutdowns, are not coming forward. They were probably told
Speaker 2: absolutely don't do this. But the early cases, well, the
Speaker 2: Air Force was, you know, kind of I guess caught
Speaker 2: off guard. The Air Force did do things like assign
Speaker 2: all of the security guys to the four parts of
Speaker 2: the Earth, right, just get them all separated. But what
Speaker 2: are they going to do? Well, the sack based officers
Speaker 2: were honoring their NDAs and so they weren't saying anything.
Speaker 2: And then eventually, as if there were any shutdowns later
Speaker 2: on after the mid sixties, Air Force was ready move
Speaker 2: in boom bam baa boom nothing. Okay, So how many
Speaker 2: shutdowns we've had. We don't know, but Robert Sallas in
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety four, god bless them, filed an FLIA or
Speaker 2: in that period, maybe prior to ninety four, he filed
Speaker 2: that a FOYA quest to the Air Force looking for
Speaker 2: information regarding that time frame and things happening in that
Speaker 2: time frame without mentioning UFO, without mentioning UAP. And what
Speaker 2: he got back, being that he was there confirmed what
Speaker 2: he happened to him happened without actually saying it, and
Speaker 2: so he viewed that is essentially freeing him up from
Speaker 2: his NDA. Not that that was clear. It wasn't, but
Speaker 2: he felt it. What and off he goes, and he
Speaker 2: comes forward waiting for the Air Force to show up.
Speaker 2: They didn't. Right now, again, this is ninety four, We're
Speaker 2: starting to move forward. A lot's happening in the early nineties.
Speaker 2: We could go into that, but you know, of course
Speaker 2: so and Steven Scheff and Roswell and everything else is
Speaker 2: going on in that period. They didn't stop him, And
Speaker 2: so off Bob goes, and for the next thirty years
Speaker 2: he is leading a group of people that want to testify.
Speaker 2: But how is it that they haven't been able to?
Speaker 2: And the answer that I give now is this Department
Speaker 2: of Defense could not They had limited options dealing with
Speaker 2: these sack based officers, whether it's Shindelli or Jamison or
Speaker 2: Arsalas Figel or whatever. What do you do? You can
Speaker 2: kill them in which case case problem solved. You could
Speaker 2: you could destroy them reputational wise to scrace tony stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 2: problem solved. Right. Uh. They could disappear right now, which
Speaker 2: you could. You could put them into detention, put them
Speaker 2: in a concentration camp somewhere okay. Uh, or you could
Speaker 2: buy them off right, come in and just give them
Speaker 2: lots of stuff to be quiet. All of those we're
Speaker 2: not going to work, right because you started killing off
Speaker 2: sack based officers like that, it would cause a catastrophic
Speaker 2: reaction and the Strategic Air Command they would be going.
Speaker 2: It would be a mutiny. It would just be a mess.
Speaker 2: It would be catastrophe. Didn't do it right trying to
Speaker 2: buy them off. These guys are honorable people. They would
Speaker 2: have probably gone to the press and shown them the offer. Okay,
Speaker 2: So what did they do, and this is something that
Speaker 2: people need to pay close attention to. They ghosted them, yes,
Speaker 2: all right? And what only mean by ghosted a lot
Speaker 2: of people know what that is, a lot of people, don't.
Speaker 2: You just pretend they don't exist. You don't talk about it,
Speaker 2: you don't respond to it, you don't respond to them.
Speaker 2: You just they don't exist. And so if the press
Speaker 2: calls up, somebody ask a question about I don't know
Speaker 2: what you're talking about. You know about Bob's hollice, I'd
Speaker 2: never heard of them.
Speaker 1: Whatever.
Speaker 2: They just just grows nothing, nothing to do anything. And
Speaker 2: the media went along with it. Okay, And as long
Speaker 2: as the media we're willing to go along with that,
Speaker 2: not press, which would required investigative journalism, which the media
Speaker 2: is not done, deliberately not done as part of the
Speaker 2: truth in Bargo, I guess you could say, then you
Speaker 2: get by. And they've gotten by for thirty years, in
Speaker 2: spite of a major documentary, a major book by Hastings,
Speaker 2: three more books by Bob Sallas, a press conference in
Speaker 2: twenty ten in the National Press Club, another press conference
Speaker 2: with media attending in the National Press Club twenty and nineteen. Okay,
Speaker 2: other articles turning up here and there. They've managed to
Speaker 2: not have to deal with it until now, finally, of
Speaker 2: Bob Sallas and you and me and others the nuclear
Speaker 2: witness testimony is now in the House all right. First
Speaker 2: of all, in the twenty nineteen press conference, Bob Salas
Speaker 2: arrived with a set of witness statements and affidavits from
Speaker 2: about eleven or twelve individuals. A couple of them were
Speaker 2: not related to shutdowns or nuclear tampering, and so I
Speaker 2: pulled those out and I delivered a hard copy set
Speaker 2: too hard copy sets to every appropriate members of the
Speaker 2: House Subcommittee Oversight Subcommittee. One was submitted by hand walked
Speaker 2: in the office right. The other one was mailed into
Speaker 2: a particular staffer, So you have two coming in two
Speaker 2: different directions. And I also included in the I sent
Speaker 2: in an emailed in a file a file copy, so
Speaker 2: there's three versions of this AFFI David witness statement set
Speaker 2: in ten offices. Then I distributed the hard copy to
Speaker 2: all seventeen offices of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and then
Speaker 2: then sent in a electronic file of those same documents
Speaker 2: to individuals individuals in the House Intel offices, along with
Speaker 2: links to right the book the documentary. Some articles about
Speaker 2: Bob and their full three hour testimony in twenty thirteen,
Speaker 2: which included Jamison, Shindeli and Salas and some other witnesses.
Speaker 1: A bunch of great witnesses, John Collen I believe from
Speaker 1: the FAA.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, that was in the FAA. I mean, well,
Speaker 2: it was the City hearing disclosure. There were forty two
Speaker 2: witnesses from ten countries and they were in eight different sets, right,
Speaker 2: ten different sets over five days. But the set there
Speaker 2: was a three hour set that was for nuclear weapons tampering, okay,
Speaker 2: And all that testimony was sent to them. The links
Speaker 2: to all that testimony is now in the offices of
Speaker 2: seventeen twenty seven members of the House and Senate, not
Speaker 2: just any twenty seven, but those that have been engaging
Speaker 2: this issue. And as it happens, because you were able
Speaker 2: to get a meeting with Nancy Mace, and you made
Speaker 2: the decision Bob come along because he was in town
Speaker 2: for the hearing, and then decided probably Steve should come along,
Speaker 2: we were able to sit down with her. And I
Speaker 2: can talk about this because that video is out there, right.
Speaker 2: We were not asked. If there was nothing out there,
Speaker 2: I would not be talking about it as a matter
Speaker 2: of courtesy the way you deal with members of Congress.
Speaker 2: But because it is, I'm able to say this and.
Speaker 1: You're there when she said that, you know, like she never,
Speaker 1: not once did she say, you know, cut out, cut
Speaker 1: this out.
Speaker 2: But even if she hadn't said that, if you go
Speaker 2: to meet with a member, they agreed to talk to you, right,
Speaker 2: you can go on and go right to the press
Speaker 2: and say everything, but they're not going to talk to
Speaker 2: you again. In other words, there's certain protocols, but you
Speaker 2: once that video was out, protocol, no problem. And so
Speaker 2: it is out there on the web, and in the interview,
Speaker 2: which is out there on the web, she says, I
Speaker 2: would love to have the nuclear witnesses testify. And I
Speaker 2: can assure you everybody on the Intel Committee has seen
Speaker 2: that statement from her. And so the next hearing, barring
Speaker 2: some dramatic shift, the next hearing is going to include
Speaker 2: clear weapons shut down witnesses. And there's enough. I think
Speaker 2: we could easily get six or seven together, most of
Speaker 2: which would be sack based officers. So that hearing, that's
Speaker 2: that's that's ballgame.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: Look, I think I think that just a hearing of
Speaker 2: the nuclear weapons witnesses might not force disclosure from not
Speaker 2: say force trigger disclosure from the president, but he could.
Speaker 2: But certainly if they were part of a twenty witness
Speaker 2: set testifying in a committee for a week, that would
Speaker 2: do it. And I'm starting to change my view about
Speaker 2: this as well. Namely, I felt that a Senate hearing
Speaker 2: was what was needed. It had to be a Senate
Speaker 2: Intel Committee hearing twenty witnesses, perhaps even the Senate Noarm
Speaker 2: Services Committee. But I'm beginning to think that if they
Speaker 2: are if the House Oversight Subcommittee held that major hearing,
Speaker 2: not a half a day a week, right, which they
Speaker 2: can do as long as the chairman of that committee
Speaker 2: agrees Matsy Mason can put it together. If they if
Speaker 2: they were to hold that would also set the president
Speaker 2: and maybe only one serious hearing a day long for
Speaker 2: nuclear shutdown witnesses would do the trip. And so we
Speaker 2: are closing in. But we are also in the middle
Speaker 2: of a massive political uh I describe it, it's like
Speaker 2: it's like we're in a political washing machine right now.
Speaker 2: The people's careers are on the line. That though people
Speaker 2: have been elected or not elected, that's resolved, but there
Speaker 2: is just a huge amount of developments that are breaking
Speaker 2: that have great consequences, and so it's not likely, highly
Speaker 2: unlikely that a hearing of any kind other than maybe
Speaker 2: bringing one person up for a quick meeting like Jillibrandton
Speaker 2: to do between now and the end of the year,
Speaker 2: and then after the new Congress takes over, well, that's
Speaker 2: kind of a change to see change. Everybody kind of
Speaker 2: knows who their assignments are. Could they hold one in January?
Speaker 2: Probably not, because there's only seventeen days from the new
Speaker 2: Congress to the inauguration, So that puts us into the
Speaker 2: next administration. That puts us into early February. At that point,
Speaker 2: the Republicans control the House and the Senate and the
Speaker 2: White House. They can do anything they want. And the
Speaker 2: members of Congress that are leading the disclosure process right
Speaker 2: now are majority Republicans, conservative Republicans, and so I see
Speaker 2: that coming together very quickly. There is no reason that
Speaker 2: the new president is going to shy from this issue.
Speaker 2: He's already spoken to it, not in depth, he said
Speaker 2: he would address it et CE and so I am
Speaker 2: anticipating a major hearing and disclosure either in February, late February,
Speaker 2: or early March.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And I I cannot wait for that hearing, which I
Speaker 2: think will happen first and Bob Sallas being at that
Speaker 2: table and I will be in that room, whatever it takes,
Speaker 2: and that's going to be a major day in the
Speaker 2: history of the country.
Speaker 1: You know, I'll be there with you, man, and and
Speaker 1: after after bomb and say a few or the other sestify.
Speaker 1: Do you think that Congress can look any further? I mean,
Speaker 1: the nuclear implication is so devastatingly gut wrenching and scary
Speaker 1: that in my mind that's I mean, that's enough to
Speaker 1: force someone's hand.
Speaker 2: Well, let me let me, let me step you back
Speaker 2: a little bit. It's no longer gut wretching and scary.
Speaker 2: The fact that nuclear weapons have been shut down has
Speaker 2: put out on the net in books and documentaries for
Speaker 2: twenty some years or more. I assure you that in
Speaker 2: the process of the Congress getting up to speed on
Speaker 2: this issue, right, they were informed that this is one
Speaker 2: of the aspects of the phenomena. So they're not just
Speaker 2: learning this for the first time. The issue is whether
Speaker 2: they're going to engage it right. And so when these
Speaker 2: witnesses sit down to testify, I already know what they're
Speaker 2: going to say. When asked a question, what do you
Speaker 2: think was the rationale behind the shutting downs of these missiles?
Speaker 2: And I believe every single one of them is going
Speaker 2: to agree. It was not a threat, it was a message.
Speaker 2: It was a message that these weapons are flightly ill advised.
Speaker 2: Nothing good is going to come from these You're going
Speaker 2: to destroy a great deal of your civilization. We consider
Speaker 2: that to be wasteful. And another message less obvious, but
Speaker 2: obvious to me if you've been in this field long enough,
Speaker 2: and that is, if you were keeping these weapons around,
Speaker 2: I mean, you'd get rid of them, because obviously blowing
Speaker 2: yourself each other up is not. But if you're keeping
Speaker 2: them around just to be safe, because you might need
Speaker 2: to use them against us, because everybody's an enemy to y'all,
Speaker 2: don't bother because you can't.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: They're toys, they're nothing to us, and so don't use
Speaker 2: that as a rastion. Now, if you want to get
Speaker 2: rid of them, don't don't. Don't don't use us as
Speaker 2: an excuse. Get your rid of them. And so that's
Speaker 2: that's I think the message that the Congress is going
Speaker 2: to get not fear, not gut wrenching, and if anything,
Speaker 2: people will be thrilled to learn that there is this.
Speaker 2: I mean, in a formal way, broadway confirmed way that
Speaker 2: that there's an aspect to our dilemma right now that
Speaker 2: could be a solution, namely, can shut these things down right,
Speaker 2: we don't have to use them, or you know, they
Speaker 2: might help us shut them whatever. And there was just
Speaker 2: a reason to feel that maybe you wouldn't up living
Speaker 2: in a post apocalyptic, post nuclear wasteland wandering around like
Speaker 2: they do and walking dead right, trying to find food
Speaker 2: and killing zombies. So it's a positive things. That's why
Speaker 2: I see this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because to me, like every single time, no matter
Speaker 1: how many times I hear it, when I hear Bob's testimony,
Speaker 1: it turns my stomach inside out. And I just don't
Speaker 1: understand how anybody, let alone someone who has a vested
Speaker 1: interest in national security to any degree, could hear his
Speaker 1: testimony and be like, yep, not taking him seriously.
Speaker 2: Well, he was taken seriously in the citizen in run
Speaker 2: Disclosure twenty thirteen. I assure you it got a lot
Speaker 2: of response. But and I you know, we deliver a
Speaker 2: full set of that to every single member of Congress
Speaker 2: in late twenty fourteen ahead of the campaign of Hillary
Speaker 2: Clinton to be president, because I already knew about her
Speaker 2: connection to the issue, and so every office had this,
Speaker 2: so it's not like it just hasn't been around. But again,
Speaker 2: it is absolutely the most difficult evidence and testimony that
Speaker 2: the Truth Embargo would have to face. And therefore they've
Speaker 2: gone to They've done everything they can short of awfulness
Speaker 2: again because these are sack based officers and not just civilians,
Speaker 2: to not let it trigger the truth Embargo or the
Speaker 2: end of the truth in Bargo and so disclosure. But
Speaker 2: that's about done. I mean, it's just about over. So
Speaker 2: they're gonna be dealing with this soon. It has to
Speaker 2: be soon also because they are very old and they're
Speaker 2: very worried. Some have already died so are not in
Speaker 2: good health, meaning that there they've been waiting them out right.
Speaker 2: Think of that, that's that's a wonderful thought. Yeah, they'll
Speaker 2: just all die, you know, sill. But eventually they're gonna die,
Speaker 2: and the truth and bargo will last on forever, I
Speaker 2: don't think. Okay. So that's where we are right now.
Speaker 2: It's an extraordinary time and I'm I'm both I'm optimistic
Speaker 2: and also pessimistic because with respect to the foreign affairs
Speaker 2: and and wars overseas, really serious with respect to the
Speaker 2: political damage in America really serious, and so it's hard
Speaker 2: to get too carried away. As I've said many times,
Speaker 2: I believe that ending this truth and bargo, triggering this
Speaker 2: paradigm shift may be the what the doctor ordered to
Speaker 2: reset ourselves and start turning away from the world of
Speaker 2: our historical intentions and start fixing things. I'm not worried
Speaker 2: anything else they could do that. Frankly, nothing you know
Speaker 2: this could do it. And so for me, disclosure isn't
Speaker 2: just oh, we finally know the truth. Isn't that wonderful.
Speaker 2: Maybe they'll tell us what the ETS are up to.
Speaker 2: It is much more than that. It is entering a
Speaker 2: new paradigm where we can actually bring some order to
Speaker 2: chaos and fix some of the worst things that we
Speaker 2: have created, solve some of the worst problems we've created
Speaker 2: for ourselves, and bring some order to this world. Not
Speaker 2: not you know, my order, I just mean logic and productivity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we would look at each other, not as you
Speaker 1: know Russian. I mean there would still be that nationality,
Speaker 1: of course, I assume, but you know, I think people
Speaker 1: would have a greater found appreciation for their neighbor right,
Speaker 1: It's no longer about being Russian, Chinese, or American. It's
Speaker 1: about being human and once.
Speaker 2: So we are, we are. There are other intelligent beings.
Speaker 2: They're not like us, but they're intelligent, more intelligent than us,
Speaker 2: more sophisticated than us. But we are all of a part. Right.
Speaker 2: They're there and we're here, and so we are part
Speaker 2: of a human race. They are not, but we can
Speaker 2: interact with them. Okay, now this is not completely true.
Speaker 2: I think there's some overlap here, but this sense of
Speaker 2: oneness is much more easily to manifest, will be more
Speaker 2: easy to manifest in a post disclosure world. Going to
Speaker 2: war over a different color of skin, or a different
Speaker 2: point of view about God, or a different point of
Speaker 2: view about ethnicity, or over pieces of land God forbid.
Speaker 1: Over fucking resource, right like oil in the ground.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, I mean, I mean, if any thing could
Speaker 2: justify a war, it's fundamental resources. In other words, if
Speaker 2: one country owned all of the water, I assure you
Speaker 2: they would have a problem. But the fact is that
Speaker 2: our wars have been more to limit resources by destroying
Speaker 2: production value, destroying environmental circumstances, undermining industry, and so forth.
Speaker 2: If it wasn't for that, we probably would have very
Speaker 2: little problem with resources. Now. So war literally is the
Speaker 2: number one problem with being able to develop resources, not
Speaker 2: to mention the vast amounts of money that are diverted
Speaker 2: from developing resources and managing the human race's needs in
Speaker 2: order to build submarines, airplantes, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, and
Speaker 2: so forth. And so essentially we are our own worst
Speaker 2: enemy and there is just ultimately no logical reason to
Speaker 2: go to war about anything other than it's a habit.
Speaker 2: And the trick it is, it's like, you know, we're
Speaker 2: addicted to war, okay, and so how do you end
Speaker 2: an addiction? Well, you go into what you going too therapy?
Speaker 1: Okay, rehab?
Speaker 2: You go into rehab, all right, and you what is rehab? Rehab?
Speaker 2: First of all, you're kind of forced to change your
Speaker 2: behavior under certain constrictions, and then you talk to people,
Speaker 2: you kind of work things out, and you get a
Speaker 2: different worldview, a different point of view about yourself, and
Speaker 2: ultimately you get to a disappoint where you can make
Speaker 2: a decision, I need to get off the mere heroin,
Speaker 2: right go or whatever. Disclosure is kind of like that, Uh,
Speaker 2: it's like, uh, whoa you there's this huge thing that's
Speaker 2: just happened. You need you need to think about this.
Speaker 2: You need to you need to re examine yourself, your country, civilization. Uh,
Speaker 2: and maybe you need to talk to some teas, right,
Speaker 2: little therapy something like that. And if you can change
Speaker 2: your perspective, look inward, look outward, you might decide you
Speaker 2: don't you want to get that monkey off our back? War? Right?
Speaker 2: Let me tell you. Heroin kills, cocaine kills. They all
Speaker 2: kill nothing kills like war nothing, okay, war number one killer.
Speaker 2: There is right other than just you know, growing old
Speaker 2: and we're addicted to it. And so again that's how
Speaker 2: I see post disclosure.
Speaker 1: I have a I have a question that I've it's
Speaker 1: it's okay, God, good time. Yeah, I know, but it's
Speaker 1: a like I said, it's a risky risky. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: a bit okay. So I've been thinking lately and it
Speaker 1: got me a little bit down a rabbit hole. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna lie, but I started thinking about whether or
Speaker 1: not the same people that are behind people like Epstein, Diddy, right,
Speaker 1: the people who are employing those people two do what
Speaker 1: they did collect you know, information on high profile people
Speaker 1: to be able to uh effectively blackmail them. Uh don't
Speaker 1: you think those might be the same people that are
Speaker 1: hiding the most advanced tech. No, you don't think that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, no, Look, we humans have many vices, we
Speaker 2: have many problems, we have we have many troubles, and
Speaker 2: so uh yeah we yeah, you don't. They don't need
Speaker 2: to be connected. Uh And there is no no connection there.
Speaker 2: There is. There are abuses in every endeavor, whether it's
Speaker 2: corporations or military, or intelligence or entertainment industry and so forth.
Speaker 2: There's always some people within them doing ridiculously awful things,
Speaker 2: but no, not connected. I think one of one of
Speaker 2: the reasons the truth in Barber was lasted this long
Speaker 2: is that the vast majority of the people that have
Speaker 2: managed it and conducted the research and the investigations, the
Speaker 2: monitoring of ET's and everything else, are basically good people.
Speaker 2: They're working for the government, they're national security well paid,
Speaker 2: but they're good people with families, and they're not deviants, right,
Speaker 2: They're not criminals. That's one of the reasons the truth
Speaker 2: embargo has lasted. It's not a criminal enterprise, though one
Speaker 2: could look at it that way. It's a national security matter,
Speaker 2: just like the management of our triad nuclear defense system
Speaker 2: is a national security matter. Some people think it's criminal
Speaker 2: that we have nuclear submarines and all the oshes of
Speaker 2: the world that could, you know, have a hiccup or
Speaker 2: something and launch a missile by mistake. And so because
Speaker 2: they're basically good people that are doing this, they have
Speaker 2: honored their nondisclosure agreements, they have kept the faith, have
Speaker 2: kept their mouth shit in many cases, and the vast
Speaker 2: majority of them have taken what they know about the
Speaker 2: et presence to the grave. So that is another reason
Speaker 2: why it's been so successful. If these peopleeople were devian criminals,
Speaker 2: it would have collapsed a lot long time ago.
Speaker 1: I suppose that makes sense. And like you said, you're right.
Speaker 1: And I hate to say this to about any you know,
Speaker 1: I hate to say this to whoever's trying to wait
Speaker 1: mister Sallas out, but I hate to break it to you.
Speaker 1: He's eighty four and I was with that guy from
Speaker 1: four am to eight pm and he didn't skip a beat. Right,
Speaker 1: He's marching forward the strongest I've ever seen.
Speaker 2: But I don't want to test his endurance. The other
Speaker 2: witnesses are not well, may not be able to come
Speaker 2: to the hearing, or maybe they could come to the hearing,
Speaker 2: but not of the interview, but they could always be
Speaker 2: interviewed by zoom and so it has to be now.
Speaker 2: We're never going to have a better chance than now.
Speaker 2: And I am quite ready to see disclosure take place
Speaker 2: under this new president. Keeping in mind, right, it's nonpartisan,
Speaker 2: always has been, and always will be. That doesn't mean
Speaker 2: the person that are involved in it could be very partisan,
Speaker 2: but the issue itself is nonpartisan. And furthermore, if our
Speaker 2: president were to confirm in late February after a hearing
Speaker 2: that clearly this is all true and the UAP Disclosure
Speaker 2: Actor is going to help get all of this out
Speaker 2: and you're going to learn everything in a reasonable length
Speaker 2: of time, other heads of state will join in within days.
Speaker 2: Major countries, they'll somebody come forward and say, oh, yes,
Speaker 2: we can confirm that. And if they're asked, well, why
Speaker 2: did you go first? Because we're not the leading military
Speaker 2: power in the world, we're not the leading economy in
Speaker 2: the world, all right. We depend on the United States
Speaker 2: in countless ways, and therefore we felt it was inappropriate
Speaker 2: for us to cut in line. Most people are going
Speaker 2: I get it, I get it right, understand, no problem,
Speaker 2: and so they will all join in. It will very
Speaker 2: quickly be a very global thing. Now, one of the
Speaker 2: great things that one of the cool questions, if I
Speaker 2: were a betting man, you know, I could put a
Speaker 2: bet up on FanDuel, how many days will it take
Speaker 2: for Shijingping if our president goes first to confirm it,
Speaker 2: how many days for putin one, five, eight, ten, twelve, whatever.
Speaker 2: Because they they will as major powers, major nuclear powers,
Speaker 2: and the China being the second biggest economy in the world,
Speaker 2: They're going to think very carefully about what it means
Speaker 2: to them if they confirm the et presence to their people.
Speaker 2: But I think they have no choice and they don't
Speaker 2: want to be left behind, and so I fully expect
Speaker 2: it be fully global within a couple of weeks, and
Speaker 2: therefore it's it's even less partisan, right it becomes a global.
Speaker 1: Issue, right. I guess my biggest fear is that even
Speaker 1: though it is a very very bipartisan issue, and that's
Speaker 1: something that we all stress all the time. We've both
Speaker 1: seen hearings happen in front of us and you can
Speaker 1: see the bipartisan nature of it. But people that you
Speaker 1: would never be in the same room are able to
Speaker 1: have conversations together about this topic. But if Trump, specifically,
Speaker 1: Trump is the one to step up on the pedestal
Speaker 1: and say, we're not alone, guys. I worried that a
Speaker 1: lot of the country simply wouldn't believe it just because
Speaker 1: it's him. They would say he's trying to pull one
Speaker 1: over on them. But if other countries started coming forward
Speaker 1: after that, I think that would kind of buck that
Speaker 1: that notion.
Speaker 2: You don't have to worry. I assure you that if
Speaker 2: President Trump comes forward, it'll either be after a major
Speaker 2: hearing in the House or Senate, which is going to
Speaker 2: be filmed worldwide and seen by millions and millions of people,
Speaker 2: me demately, followed by a major hearing in the House
Speaker 2: or Senate with ten, fifteen, twenty witnesses that'll go worldwide.
Speaker 2: And so the issue about oh, do we want to
Speaker 2: believe this person over another, it's a non issue. And
Speaker 2: would he try to politicize it? I would be quite shocked.
Speaker 2: I just don't think so. It would be difficult to
Speaker 2: do and not necessary. There's so many other things that
Speaker 2: could be politicized. There's no need to politicize this one.
Speaker 2: And it is the very nature of it is such
Speaker 2: that it remains insulated from that and That is one
Speaker 2: of its most endearing qualities and one of the reasons
Speaker 2: why disclosure is so important. We have something before us
Speaker 2: that has been denied for seventy seven years, in which
Speaker 2: every person on the planet and every country on this
Speaker 2: planet could how would you say, engage in a nonpartisan way.
Speaker 2: Is there's nothing like it to bring us together. It
Speaker 2: will bring us together in ways that nothing, absolutely nothing
Speaker 2: else could. Now that doesn't mean everybody will just suddenly
Speaker 2: get along. It just means that immediately. Now, Reagan tried
Speaker 2: to express this in a more traditional way. I got it.
Speaker 2: Consider the time. He was making the point. If there
Speaker 2: was a real alien threat and call it that from
Speaker 2: out there, would we not all come together. So it's
Speaker 2: the same concept, but in a more traditional human way, humans,
Speaker 2: as I say, being addicted to.
Speaker 1: War, right without the threat.
Speaker 2: So but he's sort of right, except that he can't
Speaker 2: be right because if there was a true fet from them,
Speaker 2: we might be able to come together. But it wouldn't matter, okay,
Speaker 2: because we're doomed, all right, we you know, not everybody's
Speaker 2: science not everybody understand you know, spends a lot of
Speaker 2: time they do watch science fiction movies. God knows, but
Speaker 2: let me be clear, we have no chance against an
Speaker 2: interstellar civilization. We probably even have left chance again interdimensional civilization,
Speaker 2: we simply don't. It's not even a fair fight. It's hopeless.
Speaker 2: So trying to think about it that way is utterly pointless.
Speaker 2: Now people might try to use that fear to make money,
Speaker 2: to get you know, funding for you know, more weapons
Speaker 2: and stuff, but increasingly they're going to be called out.
Speaker 2: I'm sure that a certain amount of national defense has
Speaker 2: been supported by the concern in the early days that
Speaker 2: there could be a threat there. Let's let's put even
Speaker 2: more money into our nuclear defenses, whatever. But overall, as
Speaker 2: time has gone by, that has become less and less
Speaker 2: logical and even absurd, And so I don't think they
Speaker 2: were putting much money in the budget right now to
Speaker 2: cover the et threat. Anybody with half of the brain
Speaker 2: and working in government right now would understand that interstellar
Speaker 2: civilization is not a fair fight. It's not even close.
Speaker 2: We would have no chance. Now if we were to
Speaker 2: build starships, if we were to put nuclear weapons on them,
Speaker 2: or other weapons, we could put up a fight and
Speaker 2: maybe even do some damage, except, of course, they're not
Speaker 2: stupid enough to ever let us do that.
Speaker 1: Hence Jacobs.
Speaker 2: They are not going to let us build starships and
Speaker 2: put nukes on them. And that's the reason why I
Speaker 2: think there is a limit to their patients, That there
Speaker 2: is a timeframe of which they are not going to
Speaker 2: go past. So they're willing to sort of go along
Speaker 2: with our intransigence, but at some point they're going to
Speaker 2: step in. If we don't get this done, we can
Speaker 2: destroy ourselves and that would be sad, but and they
Speaker 2: might regret it, but they're not going to let us
Speaker 2: build starships and put nukes on them because of some
Speaker 2: prime directive nonsense, no way. And so they're depending upon
Speaker 2: where we are technologically, and I happen to think we're
Speaker 2: very far along right on figuring out how to move
Speaker 2: around at great speeds. That time frame is short, and
Speaker 2: so now it's really less about yea, well, in other words,
Speaker 2: if if we if we as we get close to
Speaker 2: building starships, they will force the action. In other words,
Speaker 2: they will simply say, okay, enough is enough. The next thing,
Speaker 2: you know, we got ships everywhere, right, We're getting messages
Speaker 2: in our emails, you know, from the ets, look guys,
Speaker 2: something like that, and that that would be fine, right,
Speaker 2: that's okay, except we're at risk of nuclear war every day,
Speaker 2: and unless they're willing to intervene on that, before we
Speaker 2: get to those starships, we blow ourselves up, right. And
Speaker 2: so there is this dynamic kind of two dynamics operating,
Speaker 2: and I sort of have a sense of how it's
Speaker 2: going on, but I don't know what the ETS think
Speaker 2: about it. I'd love to find out one day, but
Speaker 2: I think I have an idea of the time frame
Speaker 2: dynamics that are playing out here.
Speaker 1: UH.
Speaker 2: And if I'm right, it's a good thing, because either
Speaker 2: we're going to disclose or they're going to disclose. And
Speaker 2: the only serious unknown that we can't be sure about
Speaker 2: is the nuclear war shoe. Will a nuke get used?
Speaker 2: And if a nuke gets used in any way, will
Speaker 2: we be able to handle it? And I've and I've
Speaker 2: have I posted on this, UH, I sort of posted
Speaker 2: on this. Uh. In other words, here's here's a here's
Speaker 2: a simple option, here simple possibility which is highly realistic
Speaker 2: due to the normalization of this issue and and and
Speaker 2: the use of these weapons, and because of the frustration
Speaker 2: of the Ukraine war nuke putin clears his the commander
Speaker 2: of the Ukraine forces to fire a nuclear shell, nuclear
Speaker 2: tactical nuclear shell into an area, not necessarily a city,
Speaker 2: but into an area in the Ukrainan hell territory, and mom, okay,
Speaker 2: it will be a sizeable explosion. It will not be
Speaker 2: like Kiroshima Nagasaki about a tactical nuke, but it will
Speaker 2: be a nuke. Everybody will know it, right, They're instantly recognizable. Yes,
Speaker 2: in which case he says, look, we got to either
Speaker 2: you sue for peace and we get this resolved, probably
Speaker 2: in our favor, or we'll use another one. Now that
Speaker 2: would be extremely persuasive, and I assure you he is
Speaker 2: being advised to do that. The question is that respond
Speaker 2: NATO in the US, if a single tactical weapon is used,
Speaker 2: do we step back and say, let's discuss this, right,
Speaker 2: what are your intentions? You're thinking will do this again?
Speaker 2: You know a lot of you know a lot of
Speaker 2: a lot of Yellen screaming and writing and what have
Speaker 2: you call a meeting in the UN Security Council. Are
Speaker 2: we going to do that? Or are we going to
Speaker 2: authorize the Ukraine to use a tactical nuke? You know,
Speaker 2: quid pro quote tip for tech stuff that we nicely
Speaker 2: delivered to them and say you do that on their
Speaker 2: side now, in the standard tradition of human warfare, if
Speaker 2: that's what you do, and so we do attack and
Speaker 2: he does attack, or it could be even worse than that.
Speaker 2: It could trigger a sense of paranoia and upset to
Speaker 2: such a degree that any one of the nine nuclear
Speaker 2: nations does something they would regret.
Speaker 1: Because they think, hey, if it's popping up there, I mean.
Speaker 2: I don't know, you just don't. We don't want to know.
Speaker 2: But we we've lived through our entire life, unless you're
Speaker 2: older than seventy eight, you've lived your entire life in
Speaker 2: a situation where nobody will use a nuke because they
Speaker 2: would end up being destroyed too, mutual issure destruction. We
Speaker 2: have never tested that theory except in fiction. There have
Speaker 2: been a number of very good books and movies about this.
Speaker 2: When a nuke gets used and what happens next, It
Speaker 2: always ends bad, always ends bad. Okay, So we never
Speaker 2: tested it. We're getting close to testing it, and so
Speaker 2: I consider it this issue absolutely neck and neck side
Speaker 2: by side with the disclosure issue. I feel that both
Speaker 2: have to be addressed, and I do what I can.
Speaker 2: I'm not an expert in nuclear Harma mess A not
Speaker 2: an expert in war. I know I have degrees from
Speaker 2: army colleges or whatever the hell. I'm simply a citizen
Speaker 2: who is aware of this to a degree that many
Speaker 2: people are and trying to assess it as somebody that
Speaker 2: would be a victim of it. Someone thought about it,
Speaker 2: and the two things are very much in parallel. If
Speaker 2: they were not going to be in parallel, somehow they
Speaker 2: would somehow be on two different threads. That possibility ended
Speaker 2: the day or the evening that the ETS turned off
Speaker 2: our nukes. At that point they wedded these two issues
Speaker 2: together forever, and dealing with the duality of this is
Speaker 2: critical to those that are trying to understand it didn't.
Speaker 1: If I'm mistaken and I'm taking and out of the ballpark,
Speaker 1: then I'm sorry, but it didn't. Robert Hastings say that
Speaker 1: every nuclear facility in the United States has been visited
Speaker 1: at least once by something unknown.
Speaker 2: I doubt that he might have said it's possible. There's
Speaker 2: no way he can know. There's just no way he
Speaker 2: can know. We have many, many nuclear facilities, and you
Speaker 2: would have to have some way of examining the history
Speaker 2: of all of them. So he might have said, it's
Speaker 2: likely that everyone has been visited. Certainly many have, and
Speaker 2: that's enough. Okay, it's not just nuclear shutdowns. They turn
Speaker 2: up right at places, and they don't have to shut
Speaker 2: things down, but they turn up around our ships or
Speaker 2: aircraft carriers, all of which are nuclear and so forth.
Speaker 2: They're interested in nuclear nuclear stuff. Supposedly they turned up
Speaker 2: over Chernobyl. I can believe that. I think they would
Speaker 2: be concerned about a Chernobyl, just a regular nuclear plant,
Speaker 2: no big deal. But their interests that are dropping of
Speaker 2: those bombs in Japan as opposed to testing one. It works,
Speaker 2: but let's don't build another one for God's sakes, and
Speaker 2: let's get a treaty going where no other country will.
Speaker 2: We decided to go ahead and drop them on two
Speaker 2: cities full of men, women and children. We sent a
Speaker 2: message to them was clear. And everything that happens after that,
Speaker 2: after August two thousand, I mean nineteen forty five, everything
Speaker 2: is affecting and connected to their behavior since. And I
Speaker 2: look forward to one day learning that firsthand from ets themselves,
Speaker 2: either directly or because they're communications they're having, or some
Speaker 2: sort of record that's provided to us. There is a
Speaker 2: record out there, I believe and they have of why
Speaker 2: they've done what they've done, the whole scope of it
Speaker 2: and everything else. And I would think one day we'll
Speaker 2: actually get to see that record, and boy that'll be
Speaker 2: I'll make the one hell of a Netflix series.
Speaker 1: Oh my god. Yeah, I mean, think about all the
Speaker 1: questions that you know, because let's say that the ancient
Speaker 1: astronaut theorists are correct and these they've been coming here
Speaker 1: throughout civilization. Yeah, I mean, that could be the key
Speaker 1: to our origin story. Not only that all the things
Speaker 1: that we would learn, the gaps we could fill in
Speaker 1: in our own history, but to learn about their history
Speaker 1: and who their Albert Einstein was, who got them you know,
Speaker 1: I think that would just be It would just be
Speaker 1: like you said earlier. I think it is the only thing.
Speaker 1: It's the only topic in the world that touches every
Speaker 1: single person and could fundamentally change how every single person
Speaker 1: thinks about themselves in the cosmos to.
Speaker 2: One degree or another. There is some extraordinary possibilities ahead
Speaker 2: of us, and even the next five to ten, fifteen years,
Speaker 2: I may have a good ten I from lucky, and
Speaker 2: so it would be great. I mean, it would be
Speaker 2: wonderful to start learning these things. And they probably have
Speaker 2: records and information going back a long ways. I mean,
Speaker 2: they may even be able to give us detailed information
Speaker 2: about developments on this planet millions of years ago. They
Speaker 2: may be able to explain completely and have information about
Speaker 2: the events of twelve thousand years ago. What was that event,
Speaker 2: what was that flood, how did it get caused, what
Speaker 2: were the effects, what civilizations existed prior? All of this
Speaker 2: is possible. I mean, look, you can you could store
Speaker 2: unbelievable amounts of terabytes on something in the size of
Speaker 2: a you know, not a phone, but maybe I'm looking
Speaker 2: for a bri box right right, Uh, And that's us.
Speaker 2: They could easily, in a reasonable amount of space, have
Speaker 2: the ability to store unbelievable amounts of information about the
Speaker 2: history of this planet that they could deliver on a disk.
Speaker 2: You know, we'd probably need AI to access it, but
Speaker 2: you know, the history of our planet could be literally
Speaker 2: in a file in the hands of extraterrestrials waiting for
Speaker 2: us to review, if we can get past this problem
Speaker 2: of not believing they exist.
Speaker 1: Right, what was that quote? It came from a supposed
Speaker 1: meeting between extraterrestrials and the government, you know, one of
Speaker 1: those Eisenhower meetings or something. But the general, whoever the
Speaker 1: human was, said, what's in it for me?
Speaker 2: And that Corso has a story that he filmed. He
Speaker 2: actually filmed this, and he was to leave it to
Speaker 2: his grandchildren, and after that his book came out and
Speaker 2: everything else. He talked about this. I don't know if
Speaker 2: the film was ever shown. If it exists, it's in
Speaker 2: the hands of his son. But the story is pretty cool.
Speaker 2: Which he was working out at the base, I forget.
Speaker 2: He was working at one of the major facilities sort
Speaker 2: of White Sands could and White Sands are in that area,
Speaker 2: and a craft was on the ground, unable to leave
Speaker 2: because we had full operating eight radar systems and it
Speaker 2: was blocking it. Meaning it's probably as a less technologically
Speaker 2: advanced craft than we were seeing these days. But as
Speaker 2: we know, some of the early vehicles were more prone
Speaker 2: to crashing. What crashed at Roswell wasn't even a saucer,
Speaker 2: it was a semi aerodynamic chevron. In any event, he
Speaker 2: couldn't leave, and so he literally confronts Corso out there
Speaker 2: in the middle of nowhere. Supposed he was kind of
Speaker 2: near a cave and said, look, could you please check
Speaker 2: that radar so off? And Courso said that, well, what's
Speaker 2: in it for me? Right? And the answer was a
Speaker 2: new world if you can take it. A great quote.
Speaker 2: It's a great story. If it's not true, it's still
Speaker 2: a great story. I like to believe it's true. But yeah,
Speaker 2: what's in it for us? If we get rid of
Speaker 2: these nukes and give up any idea of taking them
Speaker 2: into space? Right in a way we can go star
Speaker 2: to star? What's in it for us? A new world
Speaker 2: if we.
Speaker 1: Can take it, you can take it.
Speaker 2: It's great, A new galaxy in a sense. The galaxy
Speaker 2: is large, but even just the nearest around, there's about
Speaker 2: one hundred and fifty or more stars you could see
Speaker 2: in the sky by eye, and about two thousand right
Speaker 2: with a little bit of help. So just in the
Speaker 2: nearest around, pretty interesting area that technically could be all
Speaker 2: available to us fairly soon. A new world if we
Speaker 2: can take it. And some of the more constructive and
Speaker 2: cool versions of the future we've seen in some sci
Speaker 2: fi movies pretty much represented in many of the Star
Speaker 2: Trek films right order, reason, people getting along, purpose and everything,
Speaker 2: though they've got to have the usual shoot them ups
Speaker 2: and that crap. The great appeal of Star Trek in
Speaker 2: Roddenberry was that he was showing either directly because they
Speaker 2: would film the facilities and so forth on the planet,
Speaker 2: but also in the ship itself representing society right as
Speaker 2: people working together, getting along together, no biases and so forth,
Speaker 2: operating and cooperating to a common purpose. That's why that
Speaker 2: thing was so popular, Not because of the proton torpedoes, right,
Speaker 2: It was that. And if you strip all the torpedoes
Speaker 2: out of there, and the Balkans and this, and not
Speaker 2: the Bokens, but the so called enemies of the federation,
Speaker 2: So you take that out and you just go to
Speaker 2: the basic message that could be in our future because
Speaker 2: the the the war stuff that we were seeing in
Speaker 2: those sci fi movies and even Star Trek I don't
Speaker 2: think that's happening. Why because once you get to a
Speaker 2: certain level of technology, it's you're not about proton torpedoes.
Speaker 2: You can raise all matter of havoc and for what
Speaker 2: purpose to do? What to get a little territory in
Speaker 2: a galaxy that has two hundred million stars to get
Speaker 2: resources when there's asteroids out there with all the gold
Speaker 2: we'd ever need in our entire lifetime. So I think
Speaker 2: I think that's an absurdity. But the cooperative futuristic collaborations
Speaker 2: that we see in the Star Trek series is definitely
Speaker 2: a possibility and where we could go. But we're not
Speaker 2: taking our baggage with us, And all of that is
Speaker 2: coming to a head right now at this time, and
Speaker 2: Capitol Hill where you and I just hang out hung out,
Speaker 2: and boy, I'm so blessed. I mean, I I had
Speaker 2: a lot of mistakes and failures in my life that
Speaker 2: prevented me from maybe going off and becoming hot stuff here,
Speaker 2: hot stuff there. But yet all of those missed opportunities
Speaker 2: led to my being able to be involved in this
Speaker 2: and living a long enough to be involved, and for
Speaker 2: that I am greatly appreciative.
Speaker 1: I'll think, you know, I think I told you that
Speaker 1: morning that I don't now. What I've always always respected
Speaker 1: about you is that you've never sought fame, glory, the
Speaker 1: riches of you know, grifting the UAP community.
Speaker 2: You, I mean, nobody should grift. But you know, I
Speaker 2: need funding, and I've gotten funding, but it is getting
Speaker 2: the funding is absolutely secondary to advancing the issue.
Speaker 1: And now that's my point is far too many people
Speaker 1: are too concerned about their name appearing in the headline
Speaker 1: that it hinders some of the effort. And I think
Speaker 1: what we did that day because in the hearing, you know,
Speaker 1: you could arguably say that the hearing was was it
Speaker 1: groundbreaking or shattering stuff? No, not necessarily.
Speaker 2: It kept the.
Speaker 1: Ball moving forward. But that same night, Bob Salas got
Speaker 1: to do something that he's been waiting fifty years to do,
Speaker 1: and that's to tell someone who's a sitting member of
Speaker 1: Congress about his about what happened to him at mal
Speaker 1: Air Force Base.
Speaker 2: The closest he'd come thirty years, the closest he'd come
Speaker 2: was he did give a two hour interview to Arrow
Speaker 2: right arow Sheldon. He asked them, He asked, Erro, did
Speaker 2: you did you present it to the Air Force? Did
Speaker 2: you pass what I just told you onto the Air Force?
Speaker 2: And they said, yeah, the Air Force just said is
Speaker 2: nothing to it. But that's as far as he'd gone
Speaker 2: until he sat down with Mace the Air Force. One
Speaker 2: of the reasons the Air Force has stayed out of this,
Speaker 2: and they really have if you if you look at
Speaker 2: the last number of years, they going all the way
Speaker 2: back to two thousands of the day. They don't want
Speaker 2: to do that because the Air Force has got the
Speaker 2: biggest planing to do, all right, They've really got a
Speaker 2: major public relation problems. NASA's got a pretty substantial amount
Speaker 2: of the Air Force, and they they, you know, they,
Speaker 2: I think their attitude is, look, just you know, eventually
Speaker 2: we're going to have to answer for all this stuff,
Speaker 2: but until then, we're just going to stay out of it.
Speaker 2: Your job, right, we have important jobs, right, defending the
Speaker 2: country everything else, but we're not going to step into
Speaker 2: this because the moment we step in, right immediately, we're
Speaker 2: opening ourselves up to questions. And they don't want to
Speaker 2: answer those questions. And so, yeah, even even as late
Speaker 2: as two years ago, when confronted with Bob's report through error,
Speaker 2: they're going, yeah, it's and so I get it, I
Speaker 2: get it. But the Air Force needs to understand that
Speaker 2: it will have to account for every single thing it
Speaker 2: has ever done on this issue, going all the way
Speaker 2: back to sign okay and Grudge in the whole nine yards,
Speaker 2: all the way back. It's going to have to count
Speaker 2: for everything because this is not the kind of history
Speaker 2: you can go well, you know, it's like the Civil War. Happen,
Speaker 2: you got to it's not worth covering. Just forget about it,
Speaker 2: don't write about it. We'll move on. No, this is
Speaker 2: going to be covered by historians for a thousand years.
Speaker 2: It's going to be covered in the minutest detail. Every
Speaker 2: fact that we can, they can get, they're going to
Speaker 2: get unless they're completely hidden, never known. Everything else is
Speaker 2: going to come out and the ability of and this
Speaker 2: has occurred in an era unlike the Civil War, when
Speaker 2: the access to information is magnitudes greater. Uh, And so yeah,
Speaker 2: it's all going to be accounted for and the Air
Speaker 2: Force will have to answer for it all. I would
Speaker 2: prefer that they would get going sooner, but the fact
Speaker 2: is we don't need them. It's going to happen. They
Speaker 2: can just sit there and do nothing. It's right.
Speaker 1: Well, we'll be knocking on their doors soon enough. Well
Speaker 1: that's yeah, that's what I mean. So Okay, So we've
Speaker 1: talked about we've talked about the drones, we've talked about
Speaker 1: what you think now that that you know, the the
Speaker 1: UAP Disclosure Act in its original form didn't get put
Speaker 1: through and things were kind of delayed a little bit
Speaker 1: you've kind of talked about what you think is being
Speaker 1: set up. What are your expectations. I know people ask
Speaker 1: you this before every New year, but what are your
Speaker 1: expectations for twenty twenty five?
Speaker 4: At a minimum, barring a nuke happening in the Middle
Speaker 4: East or an invasion of Taiwan, whatever, barring something of
Speaker 4: that magnitude, things are pretty much teed.
Speaker 2: Up for the president. I left to take action right away,
Speaker 2: and if he does, it won't take long to get
Speaker 2: this done. Because once the President demonstrates to his aides,
Speaker 2: which will be conveyed to the Republican members of the
Speaker 2: House and Senate, that he wants to move I assure
Speaker 2: you they'll move fast. He didn't have to go public.
Speaker 2: He didn't have to go public and say I'm gonna
Speaker 2: do this, I'm gonna do that. He might by all
Speaker 2: just conveyed the interest book. Let's get this done, and
Speaker 2: that hearing can come together just like that. If he
Speaker 2: acts unilaterally, I recommend he doesn't. Then of course the
Speaker 2: hearings will follow, if only because they have to follow,
Speaker 2: but only because it's essential that the president will be
Speaker 2: back up right in a Republican House and Senate. It's
Speaker 2: not gonna leave him hanging out there. I mean, well,
Speaker 2: the President said, there's eteasier, but I don't know, you know,
Speaker 2: in this committee here, I don't know. Now they're gonna
Speaker 2: have to back them up immediately. So either way, it's
Speaker 2: about to being Bata band. And so technically we should
Speaker 2: be in a post disclosure world no later than the
Speaker 2: end of March, barring again something that I mentioned happening,
Speaker 2: which could at any time. There's awful stuff going on,
Speaker 2: but it can get even worse, and if it does,
Speaker 2: then this will be sidetracked for a certain way.
Speaker 1: Do you think that because he said it on multiple
Speaker 1: episodes of various podcasts, Because the unconventional thing that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump did do, which I will give him credit for,
Speaker 1: is he did go on a lot of these podcasts
Speaker 1: that have a far greater reach than mainstream does Joe Rogan,
Speaker 1: Sean Ryan All, and he's been very vocal about how
Speaker 1: you know that the UFO subject isn't really his thing,
Speaker 1: but he thinks that there should be more transparency, and
Speaker 1: you know, from the things he's been told, you know
Speaker 1: he wants to get that all out there. So I
Speaker 1: guess everyone's question is what is stopping him from.
Speaker 2: Well he's not well, yeah, no, I mean he's never
Speaker 2: got he never gives a fulsome response. Right. He said
Speaker 2: things like I'm going to release the UFO files and
Speaker 2: the JFK files, and he said other things. If you
Speaker 2: take everything, and somebody probably should do this, if you
Speaker 2: take everything, every answer he's given to every UFO question,
Speaker 2: which is he's gotten a good ten or twelve or
Speaker 2: thirteen of them, and you just put them all together,
Speaker 2: you would have pretty substantive statement there. Now. Hillary Clinton
Speaker 2: spoke to the issue repeatedly during her campaign. I made
Speaker 2: sure that I'll take all the credit, except not all
Speaker 2: the credit, some credit for that. But she didn't win, right,
Speaker 2: she spoke to it, and people around her spoke to
Speaker 2: it in a way that has not happened in this case. However,
Speaker 2: this is not a typical situation. And so but he's
Speaker 2: not he's he's clearly the door is open, right And
Speaker 2: Nancy Mace is, you know, committed to doing this, and
Speaker 2: she's a Republican and he's a Republican, and so I
Speaker 2: mean it, you know, just put two and two together.
Speaker 2: Right now, the left has got to decide they want
Speaker 2: to keep dragging their feet that the left has made
Speaker 2: big mistakes on this issue, and they've made mistakes politically.
Speaker 2: Did the left for whatever reason, just didn't have a
Speaker 2: lot of respect for podcasts. Big mistake, Okay, uh. And
Speaker 2: they've they've they've not given this this issue the attention
Speaker 2: they should not, not not not some some have, but overall,
Speaker 2: the Republican have been out in front of this issue
Speaker 2: for most of the last twenty some years. That is
Speaker 2: one of the great mistakes that the Democrats or the
Speaker 2: progressives have made in the history of their existence. I
Speaker 2: hope that they'll make up for it. Okay, they need
Speaker 2: to get on board. I've tried to meet with Raskin,
Speaker 2: can't get there right. Bumped into Warner accidentally at the
Speaker 2: rest trime. But all I can do with my business card.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, I just sat down with Nancy Minks.
Speaker 2: I'll probably sit down with maybe Burchardson again. The Republicans
Speaker 2: are out in front of this issue and that doesn't
Speaker 2: make it partisan. It just means that the other side
Speaker 2: has not gotten the proper sensibility. Obviously, I Danny, she
Speaker 2: and all the people in this field are more than
Speaker 2: happy to help the Democrats and the Progressives get on
Speaker 2: board and get totally up to speed on this. Bernie Sanders, Okay,
Speaker 2: we're happy to do that, right, but at this point
Speaker 2: you just have got it. You haven't figured it out. Uh.
Speaker 2: And I kind of know the reason for this. Uh
Speaker 2: Pepe progresses are there. Their their worldview is very much
Speaker 2: about service, very much about justice, equality, things like that. No, no,
Speaker 2: nothing shocking there, and they dealer with a lot of
Speaker 2: these social issues and they're very passionate about them. The environment,
Speaker 2: I could run through the mall, but most people you
Speaker 2: know exactly what I'm talking about. That's kind of who
Speaker 2: they are. That's fine, that's great, we need people to
Speaker 2: do that. But the trouble is they're so wedded to
Speaker 2: these issues that the et thing, because it was ghettoized
Speaker 2: and and uh uh and stigmatized by the true uh,
Speaker 2: they wouldn't touch it. And they because they didn't. It
Speaker 2: wasn't a matter I was it true or not true.
Speaker 2: It was it was stigmatized, and their other issues were
Speaker 2: were so important that they felt that engaging in this
Speaker 2: issue would undermine their ability to do all that righteous work,
Speaker 2: the stuff that they really care about, save the whales, whatever,
Speaker 2: the environment. And that's how one of the reasons that
Speaker 2: truth in Bargo succeeded. Stigmatizing and ghettoizing an issue has
Speaker 2: many effects which tend to service the secrecy and the left.
Speaker 2: The progressives fell victim of that stigma, and I've seen
Speaker 2: it over and over again. They're not nearly as transactional,
Speaker 2: and so they just didn't want to harm their other
Speaker 2: causes and so let somebody else deal with this. Well,
Speaker 2: it's going to work out that well that way, they've
Speaker 2: still got time to get on board big time. Right now,
Speaker 2: keep in mind that Chuck Schumer and Mark Warner have
Speaker 2: played a very important role, and Chuck Schumer made one
Speaker 2: of the most significant maneuvers in the history of this
Speaker 2: issue with the UAP Disclosure Act, which he brought out
Speaker 2: in July fourteenth of twenty and twenty three. And so again,
Speaker 2: it's not all or none. And so in a sense,
Speaker 2: if you're looking at the progressive side of our politics
Speaker 2: and the left Democrats, whatever, Chuck Schumer has done something huge.
Speaker 2: Is it enough to make up for all the transigent
Speaker 2: and the rest of that political arena. No, but it's substantive,
Speaker 2: and so it's not it's not all or nothing. Both
Speaker 2: sides have made their contributions. But right now it's it's
Speaker 2: out of balance, and I think it would be helpful
Speaker 2: if that balance were corrected and the Dems and the
Speaker 2: Progressives got fully on board this non artisan issue where
Speaker 2: they can work with Republicans without you know, you know,
Speaker 2: pulling out knives and guns.
Speaker 1: And honestly, I think now this is just you know, observing,
Speaker 1: but I think that if people like the general people,
Speaker 1: because we need in the community, the UFO community, we
Speaker 1: need to remember that these UAP hearings, they're not necessarily
Speaker 1: aimed at us, the people who know the case isn't
Speaker 1: tied to note. No, for the general public, the low
Speaker 1: information voter, if you want to call it that, the
Speaker 1: low information citizen who is you know, works a nine
Speaker 1: to five and just doesn't have time. They have kids,
Speaker 1: they have this so you know, what they see on
Speaker 1: the news, that's that's their world, right, So that's part
Speaker 1: of it.
Speaker 2: That's part of it. But there's other groups that are
Speaker 2: very important that these hearings are targeting. Who am I
Speaker 2: talking about other politicians?
Speaker 1: This is true.
Speaker 2: Academic scientists, all of which have buyin large state, been
Speaker 2: pushed out of the issue by the stigma they want
Speaker 2: these people to get involved. And if you're a politic,
Speaker 2: another politician or a scientist, you're not going to get
Speaker 2: involved because you get a newsletter from move On. But
Speaker 2: if you see Air Force officers testifying in front of
Speaker 2: a congressional committee, you're going to be going. Now, So
Speaker 2: what's my excuse here? So so that the hearing is multiple,
Speaker 2: there's multiple reasons you hold people and you have hearings
Speaker 2: under oath in front of Congress. It is one of
Speaker 2: the most important functions in a democracy. It has many,
Speaker 2: many effects and impacts, and it's essential. And one of
Speaker 2: the reasons that the Truth in Bargo is one of
Speaker 2: the many reasons has lasted as long is that the
Speaker 2: Defense Department and the managers of the Truth and Bargo
Speaker 2: up until twenty twenty three have managed to hold the
Speaker 2: number of hearings to two you know, since for seven right,
Speaker 2: so hey, when now we've had eight in the last
Speaker 2: four years and so not when right? So again they've
Speaker 2: they've pretty much as I've said many times, and we
Speaker 2: probably should wrap this up because it's getting laid here.
Speaker 2: But but the Truth Embargo managers have lost They just
Speaker 2: don't know it yet, okay, but there soon they will know, yea,
Speaker 2: but they're already.
Speaker 1: They're exerting their last efforts to see if they you know,
Speaker 1: because they're gonna They're gonna fight till the last minute
Speaker 1: until they finally can't fight anymore. But I do want
Speaker 1: to ask you this, because you're right, we do need
Speaker 1: to wrap it up, because you know, we have a
Speaker 1: lot of work that we still need to do. But
Speaker 1: in the hearing on November thirteenth, following a I mean,
Speaker 1: let's call it what it is, a pretty earth shattering
Speaker 1: hearing that featured David Grush and the other pilots, we
Speaker 1: saw what both hearings can be right now. We saw
Speaker 1: three witnesses with highly credible, decorated credentials give their testimony
Speaker 1: and the impact it made David grush bombshell testimony. Do
Speaker 1: you think that in November thirteenth hearings they chose the
Speaker 1: wrong witnesses?
Speaker 2: No, No, they're fine. They were excellent. There were some
Speaker 2: others they might have liked to have gotten, but they got
Speaker 2: four very good witnesses across the broad spectrum. By the way,
Speaker 2: if somebody wants to see what major hearings in front
Speaker 2: of the Congress would be like and you go on
Speaker 2: YouTube and go to the citizen hearing on Disclosure channel.
Speaker 1: I wish I was there.
Speaker 2: The five days of testimony of forty two witnesses before
Speaker 2: six former Menagers of Congress under Makos and you'll get
Speaker 2: a picture of it, and please do. It costs seven
Speaker 2: hundred thousand dollars to put on. It was the biggest
Speaker 2: project that I've ever done. I had some help, of course,
Speaker 2: but it was an idea that I had come up
Speaker 2: with and the money turned up miraculously and we got
Speaker 2: it done. It was not easy. It was tough. But
Speaker 2: my record of it was completely filmed. It was live
Speaker 2: streamed to thousands of people, and then the entire record,
Speaker 2: all thirty hours, was delivered in the DVD set to
Speaker 2: every single member of Congress. And that was late twenty fourteen.
Speaker 2: But that it's now ten years ago, and so you know,
Speaker 2: it's let me. We we have seated the ground well
Speaker 2: and so when the crop starts growing, it's going to
Speaker 2: grow very fast. And it's if it's taken long. Hey,
Speaker 2: That's the way it is on issues like this, whether
Speaker 2: it's rights, women's rights, gay rights, whether it's the end
Speaker 2: of the colonial system and the independence for India and
Speaker 2: other countries if it's certainly you know, gun control no nowhere,
Speaker 2: nuclear arms reduction nowhere. I mean, these things take a
Speaker 2: long time.
Speaker 1: What did Nancy say at the end of our meeting,
Speaker 1: Things in DC do not happen quickly.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Right. On the other hand, they can't. We handford
Speaker 2: the luxury of them taking ludicrous amounts of time. All right,
Speaker 2: there is a limit. Right. Democracy is slow for a reason,
Speaker 2: and it was set up that way by the originators. Okay,
Speaker 2: I get that, and I understood. Unfortunately, the world now
Speaker 2: moves so fast that the system can't keep up, and
Speaker 2: this is a problem that needs to be solved. But
Speaker 2: we're not in the problem solving business much anymore, and
Speaker 2: so we need to create a democracy and tweak it
Speaker 2: so that it can deal with a rapidly changing world.
Speaker 2: This is not seventeen seventy nine. Okay, but we haven't
Speaker 2: done that among so many of the things we haven't done. So, yeah,
Speaker 2: she's right, things move slow in Washington. I get it.
Speaker 2: But the simple truth is they now move too slow,
Speaker 2: and so I'm hoping that Representative Mace will understand that
Speaker 2: and not slow down, keep charging forward. She's in the
Speaker 2: process of making history at an extraordinary level. I wish
Speaker 2: her nothing but the best, but I hope that she
Speaker 2: shares it with the other members of the committee, of course,
Speaker 2: as well as the Senate and what have you. Extent
Speaker 2: it remains by partisan. Everyone wins that that.
Speaker 1: I guess that's one last thing that we need to
Speaker 1: address together.
Speaker 2: People.
Speaker 1: The one negative comment I guess that you could say
Speaker 1: we got from that the closed door hearing is there
Speaker 1: are a few people that thought that Nancy didn't seem
Speaker 1: like she was energized. But you and I were in
Speaker 1: the room. She was energized.
Speaker 2: I don't know why she was energized. She should have
Speaker 2: been exhausted.
Speaker 1: She should I mean, my god, they were.
Speaker 2: No, she had a long day, so we did. We
Speaker 2: all so to the extent that she demonstrated energy at all.
Speaker 2: That give you an idea. Now, this this this woman
Speaker 2: is lean and mean, looks like you can run a
Speaker 2: marathon backwards. So yeah, no, no, there's there's plenty. There's
Speaker 2: plenty of energy. Before we go, I want to mention
Speaker 2: something that's important. This by this time tomorrow my the
Speaker 2: front of my my website, Paradigm Research Group dot org. Well, finally,
Speaker 2: I'm one of the truly great procrastinators of the twentieth century.
Speaker 2: That if they would let me put my Wikipedia page
Speaker 2: back up, which I've been blocked on for like eighteen years,
Speaker 2: then I would I would highlight that truly one of
Speaker 2: the great procrastinators. It will reflect tomorrow that PRG is
Speaker 2: now a nonprofit five O one C three. It is
Speaker 2: changing its mandate, its mission and what have you to
Speaker 2: reflect where we are and that week and now people
Speaker 2: can donate tax deductible contributions, which is good and it's
Speaker 2: the end of the year, and so it's a good time,
Speaker 2: so Paradigm Research. But the page is not quite done,
Speaker 2: but it will be up by this time tomorrow for sure.
Speaker 1: Beautiful. And so you're still doing the Hollywood Disclosure Alliance
Speaker 1: Paradigm Research. Paradigm Research Group is now becoming a five
Speaker 1: oh one C three nonprofit.
Speaker 2: It is it is one, yeah, it is.
Speaker 1: You're working on the new website.
Speaker 2: Region Disclosure Alliance is a nonprofit too, accept donations Hollywood
Speaker 2: Disclosure Alliance dot org. I'm supporting the Contact in the Desert.
Speaker 2: I've been to help to produce that for a couple
Speaker 2: of years. Contacting the Desert is about to become a nonprofit. Okay,
Speaker 2: so yeah, it turns up, it'll be a five O
Speaker 2: one C three. And of course the new Paradigm Institute,
Speaker 2: which I support Danny Shean wants, is a five oh
Speaker 2: one C three. I'm not directly involved with the Soul Foundation,
Speaker 2: which is out of Stanford, or the UAP Disclosure Fund
Speaker 2: out of San Francisco, but they are also nonprofits five
Speaker 2: oh one C three, and then Disclosure Fund is five
Speaker 2: oh one C four. I'm happy to help them anyway.
Speaker 2: And so what you're seeing is the emergence of nonprofit
Speaker 2: entities dealing with this issue in sophisticated ways as we
Speaker 2: approach disclosure in a country that is filled with billionaires.
Speaker 2: I mean they're coming out of the work, okay. I
Speaker 2: mean you go to the bar, You're sitting there having
Speaker 2: a drink. What do you do? I invest? Oh, how
Speaker 2: you doing well? I'm worth two point nine billion. So
Speaker 2: it's like it's like in any moment some of these
Speaker 2: billionaires they go, you know, I know I need I
Speaker 2: got eighteen condos, you know whatever, I've been to space
Speaker 2: with Bezos, whatever, But wow, this is the biggest issue
Speaker 2: in the world. I could put some serious money into
Speaker 2: that and be part of that right and help these
Speaker 2: organizations and drop a couple of mill here and a
Speaker 2: couple of meal there.
Speaker 1: And boom and be remembered for ever.
Speaker 2: Reaching that point. It's only a matter of time because
Speaker 2: think about millionaires in philanthropy. It's it's everyone has their reasons.
Speaker 2: Every organization have their reasons for doing it. They have issues,
Speaker 2: and they have agendas. But one of the agendas is
Speaker 2: feeling good. They like to feel good. They like to
Speaker 2: feel they're doing the right thing and they're helping out,
Speaker 2: and that is very much connected to the issue that
Speaker 2: they choose. And so if they give fifty million dollars
Speaker 2: to cancer research or children's hospital, yeah, let's be honest,
Speaker 2: it's very fulfilling. It makes you feel good. That's one
Speaker 2: of the reasons they do it well. Giving money to
Speaker 2: the disclosure process, helping us to engage this thing, get
Speaker 2: it done, and the post disclosure world. It's only the
Speaker 2: biggest issue in the history of the human race. And
Speaker 2: so if I'm a billionaire, I want to be involved. Okay,
Speaker 2: So I think we're reaching the point where a lot
Speaker 2: and we're going to go. You know, I got a
Speaker 2: few bucks for that, and when that happens, it just
Speaker 2: helps to ensure that that not only is the truth
Speaker 2: and Barber going to end, but also that a larger
Speaker 2: a larger spectrum of people and organizations are going to
Speaker 2: be involved in the post disclosure world and not shut out. Right,
Speaker 2: We're going to have the resources to engage it. We
Speaker 2: have been denied those researchers, primarily by the stigma of
Speaker 2: that the government have successfully created the intellectual ghetto that's
Speaker 2: just about gone. So now if the resources turn up,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of very smart people that wrote those
Speaker 2: books back behind me and did the documentaries, and you've
Speaker 2: interviewed a lot of smart people that if they had
Speaker 2: the resources, could be very, very useful and productive in
Speaker 2: this par change. And so I'm feeling good about that
Speaker 2: and I look forward to to that happening.
Speaker 1: All right, And Steve, just so you can remind people
Speaker 1: where can they follow you on social media?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, Twitter at Steve Bassett or Paradigm Research Group.
Speaker 2: I'm also on Facebook Steve Bassett again, but also i
Speaker 2: have Paradigm Research Group. Also I'm on LinkedIn, Uh not
Speaker 2: on TikTok or Yeah, I'm on LinkedIn. I mean you're
Speaker 2: on You're.
Speaker 1: On TikTok, but you're just not on it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know how to deal with TikTok and
Speaker 2: the same thing I probably should be. I probably should be. Oh,
Speaker 2: I just signed up for Blue Skuy, So now I'm
Speaker 2: on Twitter in Blue Sky. And of course, you know,
Speaker 2: one's like a Mount Everest and the other is like
Speaker 2: a mole hill. But but it's fun to see, you know,
Speaker 2: some new follower turning up on Blue Sky.
Speaker 1: Hell yeah.
Speaker 2: And why am I on these things? Simple? I'm an
Speaker 2: act I'm trying to reach people. It's not making a
Speaker 2: political statement, and so I'll be on anything that makes sense.
Speaker 2: And hell, I don't know. By the way, the US government,
Speaker 2: God bless it may be about to outlaw TikTok in
Speaker 2: the United States, and I'm dying to see how that's
Speaker 2: going to go. I'm trying. I'm thinking, you know, they
Speaker 2: have to deal with with issues and activist groups. How
Speaker 2: are they going to handle I don't know, fifteen million teenagers,
Speaker 2: you know, chasing them down the street, screaming and yelling,
Speaker 2: standing out in front of the Pentagon. I'm just just
Speaker 2: curious we're going to handle that?
Speaker 1: Right? Because they I mean, they make their living off
Speaker 1: of that.
Speaker 2: So other than that, they live on TikTok And we're
Speaker 2: talking to kids, so they're about to take TikTok away.
Speaker 2: That's like telling, you know, every kid in the country,
Speaker 2: there's no Santa Claus. This is not but whatever they're
Speaker 2: thinking about it. What can I say? Government does what
Speaker 2: it does matter. It could be worse. A lot of
Speaker 2: times it's just funny. Sometimes it's not funny. Right now,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of not funny stuff, but whatever. Social
Speaker 2: media has been critical to the success of the disclosure
Speaker 2: movement and.
Speaker 1: And I honestly I think I think if me and
Speaker 1: you one year from today, the sixth of December, one
Speaker 1: year from today, I think you and I are going
Speaker 1: to be having a radically different discussion after the things
Speaker 1: that we've seen for the p from the prior year,
Speaker 1: which we're about to engage. And I look forward to
Speaker 1: working with you as much as possible. And I can't
Speaker 1: wait until we can share with people, you know, the
Speaker 1: the news and what we're what we're trying to kick start.
Speaker 1: So thank you Steve for for being someone that I
Speaker 1: can I can look up to, who I can talk to,
Speaker 1: and who I can bounce ideas off of or just
Speaker 1: you know, vent You've always been super respectable with your time,
Speaker 1: your effort, and and like I said, your your your
Speaker 1: your willingness to lend an ear or a hand. So, uh,
Speaker 1: we stand on the shoulders of giants, not just you,
Speaker 1: but myself.
Speaker 2: I stand on the shoulders of giants. Yes, right, dude.
Speaker 2: And you're part of the podcast army, and I'm always
Speaker 2: there for my podcast army. So whenever, uh, your viewership
Speaker 2: is going to go up, everybody's viewership is going to
Speaker 2: go up, and we're all gonna have a great year.
Speaker 2: I I let let's hope that twenty five, right is
Speaker 2: the greatest year of our life could very well be.
Speaker 1: And then yep, and and and and again. You know,
Speaker 1: even to be have that small part in it, it
Speaker 1: just feels it ignited something new inside of me and
Speaker 1: I haven't been able to get to to I just
Speaker 1: want more. I want more of it. I want to
Speaker 1: be in those rooms more. And it's it's it's it's
Speaker 1: it's in talkicating so yes, nuts to everyone out in
Speaker 1: the community, get out there and and and whether it's
Speaker 1: contacting Congress uh and letting them know that that you
Speaker 1: want more done from your local representative. Do it. Uh,
Speaker 1: don't just sit on Twitter or TikTok all day and
Speaker 1: and and and post about how we're not getting anywhere.
Speaker 1: Get out there and do something, because I promise it
Speaker 1: feels good.
Speaker 2: Once they do it with TikTok. All you TikTok people
Speaker 2: come over and follow me on Twitter. You know, That's
Speaker 2: all I can say. I look, I got a zip man.
Speaker 2: Thanks for being a great evening. And Tyler, you call
Speaker 2: if you have any needs anytime.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Actually I do want to talk about contact in
Speaker 1: the desert, but I'll tell I'll.
Speaker 2: Let's chatat all right, I'm gonna hit it.
Speaker 1: And to everyone out there, and I'm gonna get Steve Audias,
Speaker 1: who doesn't have to listen to me ramble. But to
Speaker 1: everyone out there in the podcast world, just know that
Speaker 1: I truly appreciate you guys.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: We've been seeing skyrocketed numbers ever since I got We're
Speaker 1: left for Washington, the the increase and coverage of the
Speaker 1: podcast views, uh streams, it's all been up. So thank
Speaker 1: you guys so much. You guys are truly one of
Speaker 1: the best audiences out there, and I I really just
Speaker 1: want to keep delivering the best content possible for you
Speaker 1: to keep that momentum going, to keep that pressure going.
Speaker 1: But we can only do that one way, and that's
Speaker 1: if we get a little bit of help and support
Speaker 1: from you guys, the viewers. So if you can, you know,
Speaker 1: sign up for membership. It's for less than a whopper
Speaker 1: or a big Mac, you know. Per month you can
Speaker 1: get access to early interviews, podcast segments, clips, all that
Speaker 1: good stuff, plus a yearly gift after one year consecutive
Speaker 1: membership autographed by me. It's your choice from the store
Speaker 1: that we have and that's another way. Great way to
Speaker 1: support the show is buying something from our merch store
Speaker 1: or sending a super chat. If you can't do any
Speaker 1: of that, sharing the show and subscribing is just as good,
Speaker 1: and it's free and it takes twenty seconds. With that
Speaker 1: being said, you know what it is, give it a thought.
Speaker 1: Let me know what you think below and what should
Speaker 1: we expect in twenty twenty five for UFOs, aliens ets,
Speaker 1: interdimensional beings, non human intelligence, et cetera, so on and
Speaker 1: so forth. You rash this guy, you never know what
Speaker 1: might fly? Bye, I have to coordinate this so so
Speaker 1: awkward when you don't have like a Jamie to do
Speaker 1: it for you. People don't understand, so I have to
Speaker 1: like try to red terrible outro, have a good night.
Speaker 3: Guys mustn't
Speaker 2: And that's
Apple Podcasts
Castbox
Castro
Goodpods
Moon FM
Overcast
Pocket Casts
Podbean
Podcast Addict
Podcast Republic
Spotify