The Age of Disclosure- UFO Documentary First Reaction & Review!
LINK THREAD—https://allmylinks.com/total-disclosure
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 the age of disclosure.
Speaker 2: The American people are ready.
Speaker 3: To receive the truth.
Speaker 4: Humanity is not the only intelligence in the universe.
Speaker 5: Humanity is not the only intelligent species.
Speaker 2: We are absolutely not alone.
Speaker 1: Non human intelligence exists.
Speaker 5: UAPs are real, they're here, and they're not human.
Speaker 2: I spent twenty five years as a senior official with
Speaker 2: the CII.
Speaker 5: I worked on a highly classified UAP program. Twenty eight
Speaker 5: years as an astrophysicist. I served as the fourth Director
Speaker 5: of National Intelligence, Director of Aviation Security in the National
Speaker 5: Security Council.
Speaker 3: The one star Admiral after thirty two years of service.
Speaker 6: Able that come forward with this, I feel like they've
Speaker 6: taken their life in their own adies.
Speaker 5: I was recruited to a highly sensitive government program that
Speaker 5: investigated unidentified aerial phenomenon.
Speaker 6: For over sixteen years on behalf of the US government,
Speaker 6: I worked as a senior intelligence official on the unidentified
Speaker 6: aero phenomenon topic.
Speaker 5: We learned that the US government was involved in a
Speaker 5: long running secret war with other nations to collect and
Speaker 5: verse engineer vehicles not made by humans.
Speaker 6: I have seen with my own eyes non human craft
Speaker 6: and non human beings. The first country that cracks the
Speaker 6: code on this technology will be the leader for years
Speaker 6: to come. China has established its own version of the
Speaker 6: UAP Task Force.
Speaker 3: Do you think for a second that they wouldn't consider
Speaker 3: using it to achieve their ends of nomination?
Speaker 6: This is similar to the Manha. This is the atomic
Speaker 6: weapon on steroids.
Speaker 3: This is so secret, very very few people in our
Speaker 3: entire government that can allowed access to it. Even presidents
Speaker 3: have been operating on a need to know basis, but
Speaker 3: that begins to ramp out of control.
Speaker 1: It's not acceptable to have secret parts of government that
Speaker 1: no one ever sees.
Speaker 7: You better be careful about a government doesn't trust you
Speaker 7: speak because there's no telling what they'll pull on you.
Speaker 5: This is the biggest discovery in unionistry. You had information
Speaker 5: being locked away that could change the trajectory for species.
Speaker 4: It has so many beneficial impacts, including clean energy.
Speaker 3: We should have disclosure today, We should have disclosure tomorrow.
Speaker 7: The time has come.
Speaker 5: What else you want to know?
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Total Disclosure, hosted by myself Ty Roberts. Today,
Speaker 1: I'm here to talk about my review and my first
Speaker 1: reactions to Age of Disclosure, the new film that just
Speaker 1: hit theaters in three cities, LA, DC, New York pretty
Speaker 1: standard for like a limited release. It was also shown
Speaker 1: at south By Southwest I think a year ago at
Speaker 1: this maybe maybe a little under a year ago. Some
Speaker 1: people got to see it at that south By Southwest convention,
Speaker 1: which is really really cool. But the movie finally finally
Speaker 1: made its debut for the public on Amazon Prime. It
Speaker 1: was a I mean, I'm just gonna start with this.
Speaker 1: This is gonna be spoiler free for the most part.
Speaker 1: I don't even know if you can spoil a movie
Speaker 1: like this, can you? I don't know, can you? Can
Speaker 1: you spoil a movie like this? I don't know. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna do my I'll do my best to not like
Speaker 1: talk about anything that actually happens in the film that
Speaker 1: like people would be pissed about. I don't think there's anything.
Speaker 1: Maybe there's a couple lines, maybe maybe a couple like
Speaker 1: key lines of dialogue, but I don't even have any
Speaker 1: of the quotes like that. So anyway, it's gonna be
Speaker 1: pretty generalized. I'm gonna go into some of the things
Speaker 1: I liked about it, some of the things I didn't
Speaker 1: like about it, some of the things that I thought
Speaker 1: were a bit redundant, And you know, if you want
Speaker 1: to chime in, I will definitely be queuing in the chat.
Speaker 1: So please if you can help support the show, you
Speaker 1: can become a member, become an asset, gain your classification,
Speaker 1: gain access to early access videos, podcasts, no ads or
Speaker 1: anything like that, or send a super chat and that's
Speaker 1: always a good way of helping monetarily. If you can't
Speaker 1: help monetarily, that's okay. Not everyone can like share subscribe,
Speaker 1: and that's the best way to really help the show,
Speaker 1: as well as maybe rating it on podcast platforms like
Speaker 1: Apple or Spotify. All Right, with that being said, I
Speaker 1: want to start diving into my review. So first couple
Speaker 1: of things I wrote down and I have a lot
Speaker 1: of notes for this which are a little bit sloppy.
Speaker 1: Not sloppy, but I have this. So when I was
Speaker 1: working on Pop Culture Corner and doing a lot of
Speaker 1: those movie reviews, I built out this like system because
Speaker 1: I would have to. I would go to movies all
Speaker 1: the time and I would have to review them. I
Speaker 1: actually had a deal with the theaters in the area,
Speaker 1: the Boston area Showcase Cinema if anyone is in New England.
Speaker 1: It's a local chain, but it's one of the biggest
Speaker 1: chains in the world, it's like in the top ten.
Speaker 1: So I had to deal with showcase cinemas and I'd
Speaker 1: go and review movies and then I would review them
Speaker 1: from inside the theater. So I ended up building out
Speaker 1: this kind of like what I would consider as like
Speaker 1: a checkpoint list, but I made one for documentaries as well,
Speaker 1: because I'm not gonna bore you with that shit. But
Speaker 1: I built out this thing so I use that for
Speaker 1: age of disclosure. And I calculated a review score from
Speaker 1: one to ten, not rookie scores if anyone watches Barstool
Speaker 1: Pizza reviews, so there's always a decimal. I've never given
Speaker 1: a perfect score. For instance, I think the highest score
Speaker 1: I've ever given was a nine point something like a
Speaker 1: nine point two nine point three. So, just before I
Speaker 1: get into all of it, that's the backstory. I've never
Speaker 1: given higher than a nine point three on any film.
Speaker 1: I don't think any film has ever been perfect. I
Speaker 1: think Oppenheimer was like eight point nine on My Thing,
Speaker 1: which is pretty fucking high. So yeah, with that being said,
Speaker 1: I want to go through some of the stuff. I
Speaker 1: think it was very clear from the trailer what this
Speaker 1: movie was going to be and what this movie was
Speaker 1: always going to be. Was was a retelling of the
Speaker 1: narrative that has been set forth and what was set
Speaker 1: forth into that twenty seventeen via the New York Times article.
Speaker 1: Most people remember this as probably the start of modern
Speaker 1: day ufology. It was written by Leslie Keane, Ralph Blumenthal,
Speaker 1: and Helene Cooper. The title was Glowing Ore is a
Speaker 1: Black Money the Pentagon's mysterious UFO program. Now, in this
Speaker 1: report or bombshell article, if you will, we got in
Speaker 1: introduced to some key players in what we were told
Speaker 1: was a UFO investigation program. Till that point in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: You have to remember that the only on the books
Speaker 1: program that we had known was Project Blue Book. Right,
Speaker 1: Everyone in the UFO community, in the field, the big players,
Speaker 1: the UFO talking heads, if you will, they always had
Speaker 1: this notion that there was a program. It was just
Speaker 1: not public It wasn't public facing like Project blue Book.
Speaker 1: And after the Conduit report kind of shut or put
Speaker 1: the gabage on UFO reporting, the stigma started to set in.
Speaker 1: And then we found ourselves with fifty years of denial,
Speaker 1: fifty years of cover ups, fifty years of silence, if
Speaker 1: you will, from government in general, like the US government,
Speaker 1: and then in seventeen. It was really actually in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: late twenty sixteen, because I think the article published in
Speaker 1: December of twenty seventeen, so that's right on the new
Speaker 1: year line, So it was really late twenty sixteen. Rumors
Speaker 1: started swirling that there was this guy, he was involved
Speaker 1: in something, and he was coming forward, but no one
Speaker 1: really knew exactly what until that day December twenty seventeenth,
Speaker 1: December twenty sixth, December sixteenth, twenty seventeen, it ran. I
Speaker 1: remember it was a Sunday, and then on the Monday
Speaker 1: it ran in the actual like hard copy of the time,
Speaker 1: and I still have that somewhere in my files. We
Speaker 1: were introduced to Lou Elizondo, a gentleman named Lou Elizondo,
Speaker 1: and the program a Tip, the program a Tip as
Speaker 1: it was presented to us in that article, and I
Speaker 1: should Brian Bender from Politico also was reporting on this,
Speaker 1: and I should bring that point up as well. So
Speaker 1: Brian Bender reported on it for Politico. Kind of launched
Speaker 1: at the same time that The Times, No pun intended
Speaker 1: took the lead. It was obviously the bigger outlet, but
Speaker 1: Politico has literally had the same access and essentially the
Speaker 1: same story they were telling to the public. So twenty
Speaker 1: seventeen changed the modern UFO disclosure movement. However, however, and
Speaker 1: so it did set the tone, and it started this
Speaker 1: kind of like crescendoing house of cards right starting to fall,
Speaker 1: if that makes sense, or like dominoes starting to fall.
Speaker 1: But it was all set centered around the Nimts, the
Speaker 1: two thousand and four Knimts encounter with David Framer, Alex Dietrich,
Speaker 1: Chad Underwood. Uh. And most people will know this footage
Speaker 1: very very well. So that footage came out with the
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen New York Times article. Along with it, Alizondo
Speaker 1: and Chris Mellon had snuck it out of the Pentagon
Speaker 1: quote unquote, uh, you know, recounting, not from Lou's book.
Speaker 1: At least that's how it's framed, is they snuck the
Speaker 1: footage out. They like to find some loophole. It wasn't classified,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't for public eyes. So there it was
Speaker 1: a little bit of gray. Uh. And all of a
Speaker 1: sudden there's a resurgence in the UFO world, like the
Speaker 1: UFO community acknowledgment of this program a TIP, which stands
Speaker 1: for the advanced Oh Jesus, why am I doing this now,
Speaker 1: advanced Aerospace threat Iification program. But then what we later
Speaker 1: find out is ASAPP was the actual mother program. That
Speaker 1: was the advanced Maybe I'm god Jesus, Advanced Aerospace Weapons
Speaker 1: Systems UP Application program. I might have one of those
Speaker 1: words wrong, like anomalous or aerospace, but yeah, that was
Speaker 1: a TIP. And ASAP turns out a TIP was a moniker,
Speaker 1: an unclassified moniker for ASAP. So I'm just like a
Speaker 1: little confused. Because so the twenty seventeen New York Times
Speaker 1: article comes out, it positions a TIP, It positions Alizondo
Speaker 1: at the forefront, however, and I think it did a
Speaker 1: lot of good. It really did. However, this like threat
Speaker 1: a threat narrative emerged with Alizondo. Everything was national security everything,
Speaker 1: and I get it, he's a counter intel guy. I
Speaker 1: think it'd be stupid if our government and it wasn't
Speaker 1: looking at this as because you can't. There's a thin
Speaker 1: line between indifference, indifference and malevolency, right, So I think
Speaker 1: it'd be very stupid to not look at UFOs who
Speaker 1: are breaching nuclear sites as a threat However, they have shown,
Speaker 1: they have shown a much higher capacity than I think
Speaker 1: is ever being let on. Humans seem to be the
Speaker 1: issue the aggressors in the situation. It's no secret that,
Speaker 1: you know, even in this film they talk about it
Speaker 1: with Roswell. The cover up kind of started there, right,
Speaker 1: CIA is born out of that, you know, a few
Speaker 1: months later, or not even a few months, I think
Speaker 1: six barely six months go by before the National Security
Speaker 1: Act is passed by true and by the time Eisenhower
Speaker 1: gets involved, he's warning us about the military industrial complex. Right,
Speaker 1: Blue Books now you know there. But you know, no
Speaker 1: one's ever really sure what Project Blue Books, like actual
Speaker 1: motivation was. Were they hiding things? I think the general
Speaker 1: consensus is yes. So I bring all this up for
Speaker 1: a reason because the twenty seventeen New York Times article,
Speaker 1: for all the good it did, there was some major
Speaker 1: flaws that were in the article. For instance, a tip
Speaker 1: was not the program that was awarded the twenty two
Speaker 1: million dollars. That was a program called ASAP. That was
Speaker 1: a program run by James Lakatski. That was a program
Speaker 1: that was funded or was under the Bigelow team. Bigelow
Speaker 1: was awarded the contract. So Harry Reid goes to a
Speaker 1: couple members of the Gang eight and Daniel Ineway is
Speaker 1: one of them. Forget who the other person is. So
Speaker 1: Daniel in a way gives a very good speech maybe
Speaker 1: some of you will know it, where he talks about
Speaker 1: that there's a government that we don't see. They act
Speaker 1: above the law. They have their own fundraising recoganisms, their
Speaker 1: own army, their own navy, and so he's one of them.
Speaker 1: Him and Senator Harry Reid, who at the time held
Speaker 1: a very very high ranking position in government, went to
Speaker 1: them decided we're going to put twenty two million dollars
Speaker 1: aside and we are going to essentially create this Black program.
Speaker 1: This Black Program was AWESAP and it was going to
Speaker 1: study everything that you can think of, from the paranormal
Speaker 1: to I mean, it was mainly a UFO investigation program,
Speaker 1: but a lot of their work was out of Skinwalker Ranch.
Speaker 1: Bigelow was known for this right. He had bought in
Speaker 1: Skinwalker Ranch and some other properties. Bigelow's name is tied
Speaker 1: to nids now NIDS. If you start looking at the
Speaker 1: roster of NIDS, you'll start seeing a lot of names
Speaker 1: that seemed to pop out again in the twenty seventeen article,
Speaker 1: but spun a different way again. This is why I
Speaker 1: bring it up because I'm very confused. So I want
Speaker 1: to start with this because this is what my main
Speaker 1: confusion comes from. Because the New York Times never issued
Speaker 1: a retraction. Leslie Keene, Ralph Fluenthal, Lane Cooper, and even
Speaker 1: Brian Bender to a degree. I think he even went
Speaker 1: on some shows and did like they've all talked about
Speaker 1: how the os APP was the real program they knew
Speaker 1: about ASAPP at the time when they broke the story
Speaker 1: in the Times and Politico. So why wasn't Why was
Speaker 1: that omitted? Why was that omitted? What was a tip?
Speaker 1: And who was Aleiszando? Because from what I gat, I mean,
Speaker 1: there's been so much The Pentagon has come out saying
Speaker 1: Alexondo had no responsibilities. Obviously Harry Reid said that's bullshit,
Speaker 1: and Harry Reid, I'm inclined to believe. But what was
Speaker 1: a tip? Really, it seems to have been a moniker
Speaker 1: for us APP in the unclassified areas when they went
Speaker 1: up for Special Access program status. They didn't want to
Speaker 1: let people know they were studying ghosts and shit at
Speaker 1: Skidwalker Ranch so they kind of lamanized the program name
Speaker 1: to a tip and that was what they showed people, right,
Speaker 1: They just didn't want anything coming back because remember at
Speaker 1: the time, you know, this was really stigmatized. So this
Speaker 1: movie centers around that same story. But if we agree
Speaker 1: that that story has flaws in it, what are we
Speaker 1: doing here? Like Corbell for instance, this is another thing
Speaker 1: that grinds my gears. Corbell he knows el Aleixando. I
Speaker 1: have no doubt that Alexando is involved to some degree.
Speaker 1: I think Jay Stratton has Gune on the record saying
Speaker 1: that that is the case. But was it funded? Is
Speaker 1: the is? And if it wasn't funded, if if whatever
Speaker 1: incarnation of Alexando's work with UFOs, if it wasn't funded, Honestly,
Speaker 1: I'd give him more credit for splitting his time for free.
Speaker 1: So I just don't understand why there's this conflation between
Speaker 1: what os App was what Jim Lakatski has told us
Speaker 1: in books like Skinwalkers at the Pentagon written by George Knapp,
Speaker 1: James Lakatski and Colem Keller her So there's this big
Speaker 1: narrative divide that I just don't understand. Like I don't
Speaker 1: get it The New York Times has it wrong. If
Speaker 1: what Lakatski says is true, if what George Knapp says
Speaker 1: is true. Right, But they seem to just overlook this
Speaker 1: and be like, oh, well, it's not even a big deal.
Speaker 1: Oh and it kind of is a big fucking deal,
Speaker 1: especially when everyone in this movie, all of their lower thirds,
Speaker 1: said that they were advisors to a tip, from Eric
Speaker 1: Davis to how put Off to Gary Nolan, all of them,
Speaker 1: they were all advisors to a tip. I had no
Speaker 1: fucking idea. I had no idea that that was the case.
Speaker 1: What was a tip in that case? Because if it
Speaker 1: wasn't funded, the twenty two million dollars went too asap.
Speaker 1: By the time that a tip in Alizondo came in,
Speaker 1: there was virtually no money left. They were going up
Speaker 1: to get more money. And that's when Harry Reid had
Speaker 1: had lost his poll. And and I think James Clappers,
Speaker 1: even the one that denied it, and now he's even
Speaker 1: in this film, Like, I just I'm just having some
Speaker 1: fucking real hard time like battling this in my head.
Speaker 1: So I just I just want to know what the
Speaker 1: truth is. I'm not saying I really did want to
Speaker 1: start this because I think it's a high point of
Speaker 1: my own contention that I don't understand what a tip was,
Speaker 1: what Elizondo was working on. I understand what Jay Stratton
Speaker 1: was working on was the UAP Task Force. He seems
Speaker 1: to be the common thread through all of the programs
Speaker 1: up until Arrow, and it's you know, I think he
Speaker 1: was helped build the foundation for ARROW and then backed
Speaker 1: out like almost immediately. So and there's been some controversial
Speaker 1: things that Jay and Eric Davis have been on record
Speaker 1: saying about Elizondo. So I'm not and again I don't
Speaker 1: want to sound like an Alexando hater. I'm not an
Speaker 1: Alexondo hater. He's a patriot. I read I read his
Speaker 1: book three but audible. I didn't read it. I hadn't
Speaker 1: listened shared to me three different times because I wanted
Speaker 1: to make sure I'm getting these these things right. But again,
Speaker 1: you start seeing these the same names, the same names
Speaker 1: pop up every single time, every program, anytime there's money
Speaker 1: studying UFOs, the same name show up. Help put off
Speaker 1: Eric Davis carry Nolan to some degree like you're it's
Speaker 1: it's it's very clear, and maybe they are the best
Speaker 1: at what they do. I have no no quarrel with that.
Speaker 1: It's just those same people like Elizondo, like hal put Off,
Speaker 1: they start to they they start to worry me. It
Speaker 1: seems they have their their feet on both sides of
Speaker 1: the line. They want to tell you more, but they can't.
Speaker 1: They're obligated by their NDAs and their oath to the country.
Speaker 1: They'll then they'll even I mean, they'll dangle the carat
Speaker 1: right in front of you and say you're gonna wish
Speaker 1: someone told you this sooner. Like that was like one
Speaker 1: of the lines in the movie. I was like, what
Speaker 1: the fuck did I did you just say that? Oof? God,
Speaker 1: the movie was really well done. It was really well done.
Speaker 1: Really the style like no scary alien cutaways, no X
Speaker 1: Files theme. It took the subject seriously, very like deadly seriously.
Speaker 1: And I like that, I really do. I think that's
Speaker 1: the way that we need to head. And I think
Speaker 1: that really like caught on with James Fox as the phenomenon,
Speaker 1: which arguably for me for me scored hire for me personally.
Speaker 1: I like the case studies and the actual data and
Speaker 1: the actual witnesses. That's what I like. Now what we
Speaker 1: hear have with Age of disclosures is interesting, and I
Speaker 1: think it was framed like this from the trailer that
Speaker 1: it was going to be, you know, thirty four people
Speaker 1: from the government telling you what they know about UFOs.
Speaker 1: Except here's the catch. They're only telling you, They're only
Speaker 1: telling us what they can tell us. So at what
Speaker 1: point do you say that this is the dood ap
Speaker 1: proof version of disclosure? And again that is that a
Speaker 1: bad thing? Maybe not? Is that the only way we
Speaker 1: get disclosure? Maybe is everything a threat? I don't know,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think I think the scaring people
Speaker 1: part of it. It's a dangerous line, and I know
Speaker 1: this is a serious thing, right especially to these people
Speaker 1: like Alizondo to how to Eric Davis, to all of
Speaker 1: them their patriots first, and I'm okay with that, but
Speaker 1: don't dangle the carrot. I feel that that's very disingenuous.
Speaker 1: I feel I feel like if if you were in
Speaker 1: the topic, if you knew the UFO community lore, if
Speaker 1: you will, this movie wasn't. It didn't really bring anything new.
Speaker 1: James Clapper maybe maybe maybe that was a new thing,
Speaker 1: But again he was only on screen for a limited time,
Speaker 1: so I know, things get left on the cutting room floor.
Speaker 1: But why we're certain things left on the cutting room
Speaker 1: floor is my question. That's my question first and foremost
Speaker 1: the ASAP stuff, La Katski. They all know about the
Speaker 1: bigger picture. Why are we not hearing about it? Why
Speaker 1: are we only hearing from a Tip? And Alizondo this movie,
Speaker 1: He's definitely the main character, make no mistake about it.
Speaker 1: Alizondo is the core of the story. And again I
Speaker 1: am not saying that's a bad thing. What I am
Speaker 1: saying is there's all these questions that people have that
Speaker 1: haven't been answered. So and again you know Leslie Kane,
Speaker 1: Ralph Blumadal and I'm what I fear is that most
Speaker 1: people like Corbel, like Nap, like like Leslie Kane, who
Speaker 1: have been in this subject for whatever and have reputation
Speaker 1: to uphold. They've built a living on this narrative that
Speaker 1: was set fourth in twenty seventeen. So they may have
Speaker 1: conversations with Jim mccatsky. He might tell them directly that
Speaker 1: ASOPP was the program that was awarded the twenty two
Speaker 1: million dollar contract, that a Tip was a moniker, an
Speaker 1: unclassified moniker for us UP. They may tell you all
Speaker 1: these things, but then they just let them me. I
Speaker 1: feel like it's they don't want the UFO disclosure movement
Speaker 1: to be hurt in any way, so they don't want
Speaker 1: to admit that anything's wrong. And I've had a problem
Speaker 1: with this for so long, so long, because if we
Speaker 1: can't admit when we're wrong, when we're talking about the
Speaker 1: most complex, the most existential question of our lie lie
Speaker 1: lifetimes of human humanity, of global histy, if we can't
Speaker 1: admit we're humbly wrong, Oh boy, we are starting bad
Speaker 1: so again. This movie is really well done. I got
Speaker 1: to give Dan Farrah credit all the players that he
Speaker 1: was able to assemble. I mean that's a feat and
Speaker 1: the amount of credible qualified individuals. It's amazing to see.
Speaker 1: It really is, you know, well rounded. I think from
Speaker 1: civilian airspace all the way to the military encounters and
Speaker 1: UFOs and nukes. I liked seeing that ufone, UFOs and
Speaker 1: nukes were were talked about. My friend Bob Salice was
Speaker 1: was interviewed for this film. U He was on screen
Speaker 1: for like two minutes. They talked about Malmstrom and I
Speaker 1: get it. You know, movies have got run times, and
Speaker 1: I think even in so Dan Farrah also did a
Speaker 1: Rogan interview the day that it came out, and he
Speaker 1: had said that he had like a four hour director's
Speaker 1: cut of this Age of Disclosure film, and then you
Speaker 1: need to start. I'm just I'm very interested to see
Speaker 1: what they'll do with that. There's got to be so
Speaker 1: much stuff that they recorded with Clapper, like with and
Speaker 1: and Clapper, I have a real issue with just as
Speaker 1: a person. He's been known to perjure himself to Congress.
Speaker 1: Oh like so and then told us that he gave
Speaker 1: us the least hurtful truth or something to that degree,
Speaker 1: like the least impactful lie, and that's how he like
Speaker 1: and I and I again, I understand this whole government
Speaker 1: world is is dicey. It's dicey. You don't want to
Speaker 1: go to jail, you don't want to break an NDA,
Speaker 1: you don't want to commit treason. All of that stuff
Speaker 1: is so acceptable, But just say it, Just say it,
Speaker 1: give it to us up front, right, don't call yourself
Speaker 1: a whistleblower if you've gone through DoD prepublication, because that's
Speaker 1: not a whistleblower. Again, so that these terms get thrown
Speaker 1: around a lot, and I think that's what we need
Speaker 1: to be careful because it's it's it's not lying, it's
Speaker 1: exaggerating or conflating. And like the skeptics, they're already so good.
Speaker 1: The debunkers are already they're they're so talented. If you
Speaker 1: give them a reason, they're gonna poke holes in this
Speaker 1: whole fucking thing. And then until they are shown the
Speaker 1: physical evidence that everyone wants right, they're never going to
Speaker 1: change their mind and they're going to continue to be opposition.
Speaker 1: And when someone as credible as what I you know,
Speaker 1: a nuclear launch control officer, comes out and says, hey,
Speaker 1: something's weird is happening, Like Mario Woods. Mario Woods was
Speaker 1: featured in his Age of Disclosure, albeit for only a
Speaker 1: couple of minutes. They didn't get into a lot of cases.
Speaker 1: It was a lot of a generality about the topic
Speaker 1: of UFOs. How there was a tip which tried to
Speaker 1: do the right thing and tried to study UFOs. It
Speaker 1: got caught up in the bureaucracy. He couldn't get the
Speaker 1: job done from the inside, so he had to resign,
Speaker 1: and he had to resign to continue his mission. And
Speaker 1: this is Alisando, of course, and that's the story that
Speaker 1: we've been fed. And again you look at nids right,
Speaker 1: look at nids, Look at the big low era, then
Speaker 1: jump and fast forward to a tip and then to TTSA,
Speaker 1: and then and so on and so forth. You see
Speaker 1: the same people telling the same stories. So again, it's
Speaker 1: not I don't think Age of Disclosure was anything new
Speaker 1: for anyone who knows the topic. And if they're, if they're,
Speaker 1: if their goal was to get to the general public,
Speaker 1: that's cool, that's great. I'm glad. I'm very glad actually,
Speaker 1: but are they gonna watch it? I know it's I
Speaker 1: think it's currently ranked one on on Prime. But again,
Speaker 1: the UFO community and like the people it touches, I
Speaker 1: think are it is a lot more than it was,
Speaker 1: say two thousand and four when the Nimbit's happened. But
Speaker 1: it's not. It's not the consensus by any means. It's
Speaker 1: a small group in the grand scheme. And if it's
Speaker 1: if Age of Disclosures purpose is to get to the
Speaker 1: general audience slapping a twenty five dollars tag on it,
Speaker 1: that's a rough deal. I don't People won't even go
Speaker 1: to the movie theaters anymore if it's not a fucking
Speaker 1: Marvel movie or some big action blockbuster summer blockbuster. You
Speaker 1: think they're gonna pay twenty five dollars for this movie?
Speaker 1: Who I mean? And I'll give it to Dan. He
Speaker 1: did say in that interview with Rogan that he showed
Speaker 1: it to many streamers and all of them watched it.
Speaker 1: They liked it, but they declined they didn't want to
Speaker 1: pick it up. Why is that? I don't know. Do
Speaker 1: I think Dan is a bad person? No? I think
Speaker 1: he made a great fucking movie. It just was marketed
Speaker 1: a certain way, and it used certain monikers and labels.
Speaker 1: For instance, I hope I won't get in trouble, but
Speaker 1: I'll put off a tip. Chief Scientists Eric Davis a
Speaker 1: TIP scientific advisor. Were the advisors to a tip? Or
Speaker 1: were the advisors to us UP? I know they were
Speaker 1: connected to NIDS and Bigelow, so I know, and we
Speaker 1: know from skinwalkers at the Pentagon that they were connected
Speaker 1: to us APP. But what is a tip? No one
Speaker 1: seems to be able to define a tip for me
Speaker 1: because it was not the pro and it shouldn't be
Speaker 1: like terrible thing to say it was not the program
Speaker 1: that was awarded twenty two million dollars. We know that
Speaker 1: that was us HAP. Are we saying it was the
Speaker 1: same program. Lakatsky says, no, Elizondo has said no, So
Speaker 1: that leaves me with a huge flaw right from the jump.
Speaker 1: And I don't know, you know, I'll probably get ridiculed
Speaker 1: for even saying that, but it it. It's hard for
Speaker 1: me to tell someone to watch something when I know
Speaker 1: that there is some sort of inaccuracy in it. The
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen article did a lot of good. It set
Speaker 1: us on the path we're on today. I argue we
Speaker 1: wouldn't have this conversation right now if it wasn't for
Speaker 1: said article. But no retractions ever made. No one ever
Speaker 1: talks about it, and if you talk about it, you
Speaker 1: get silenced. It's weird. It's weird. Now, am I saying?
Speaker 1: Am I on this side or the other? I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that I listen to everybody. I still
Speaker 1: if doctor Greer puts out a movie, I buy it
Speaker 1: because I hear everybody out I am observing, and I'm
Speaker 1: simply stating what I'm observing. The A tip and the
Speaker 1: AWSEP thing. I would like to be a little bit
Speaker 1: more defined because I think it's a big deal. I
Speaker 1: think it's a big deal, and on the surface, I
Speaker 1: think it's to most people they would say, oh, it's harmless.
Speaker 1: But again, like the New York Times article, it is
Speaker 1: fundamentally untrue. Ass Up was the program that was awarded
Speaker 1: the twenty two million, and if that was omitted on purpose,
Speaker 1: While not false, it completely disregards a huge portion of
Speaker 1: this core story building off that threat narrative, the national
Speaker 1: security concern. It's dicey. It's dicey, but understandable for storytelling
Speaker 1: and to get people motivated. Sometimes you got to scare
Speaker 1: them a little to get them motivated. I just want
Speaker 1: people to know what should motivate, Like, do I think
Speaker 1: we should be scared of UFOs? No, I don't. I don't.
Speaker 1: They've if they wanted to, and us we wouldn't have
Speaker 1: gotten out of the the Stone Age right or at
Speaker 1: any time, they could just hurl an asteroid from the
Speaker 1: belt at us and boom reset. The apes of thermonuclear
Speaker 1: weapons are gone. Start again. The optic in UFO sightings
Speaker 1: with nuclear data and more nuclear testing. That concerns me.
Speaker 1: That concerns me, so I think, But again, I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of good things in the movie. I'm
Speaker 1: starting there because I'm starting there. It's my main contention point.
Speaker 1: It's really my only contention point. I like hearing from
Speaker 1: these guys. How put Off again goes into it that
Speaker 1: he was in the in the Bush era. He was
Speaker 1: on this panel if you will, or this think tank,
Speaker 1: and this is something I really really want to dig into.
Speaker 1: He was in this stinc tank from the George Bush
Speaker 1: era where they were apparently deciding on whether or not
Speaker 1: to do some sort of disclosure. And they were broken
Speaker 1: up into small groups. And these are leading scientists, they
Speaker 1: were contractors. Anyone worth their salt in any of these
Speaker 1: related or touching fields was brought in for this. How
Speaker 1: put Off was one of them. I'm sure there was
Speaker 1: plenty others of names that you would know if you
Speaker 1: heard them that was involved, but just haven't come forward yet.
Speaker 1: And they were given the task to find out what
Speaker 1: would be would it be positive or negative? Like overall,
Speaker 1: to disclose the information that UFOs are a thing, that
Speaker 1: we are not alone in the universe, and that we
Speaker 1: have acquired material, whether it be from Roswell, from Corona,
Speaker 1: from was that one in Italy, Magenta, whether wherever it's from,
Speaker 1: We've acquired biologics of a non human intelligence. Could this
Speaker 1: be what our ancestors were referring to as gods or
Speaker 1: angels and demons? I think that's because that's another thing
Speaker 1: to talk about in the movie. They were surprised that
Speaker 1: people's religious beliefs came into play. I don't find that
Speaker 1: odd at all. I think if someone's a hardcore religious
Speaker 1: person and you tell them you're digging into UFOs at
Speaker 1: Skinwalker Ranch, they might not want to hang around you anymore.
Speaker 1: And haven't we proven or Lakatski and all them proven
Speaker 1: that they might be right in having that mindset, the
Speaker 1: hitchhiker effect, a Vanda syndrome, all that shit. You got
Speaker 1: to ask, are we all talking about the same thing
Speaker 1: and we're just us in different words? Because that's what
Speaker 1: it looks like to me. Angels And like what I
Speaker 1: find it'd be a great case is James Fox and
Speaker 1: moment of contact, the being smelled like ammonia or what
Speaker 1: the fucking brim fire? What is that word? Someone in
Speaker 1: the chat? No, what is it smells like rotten eggs? Ammonia? No, no, no, no, whatever.
Speaker 1: So the being smelled like this, and it's exactly and
Speaker 1: it had red eyes and when the girls saw it.
Speaker 1: They thought it was a demon because it had red
Speaker 1: eyes and it smelled like sulfur. Thank you, sulfur, surf sulfur.
Speaker 1: No one actually helped me. I picked it up. So
Speaker 1: I think that's a very good case in showing that, like,
Speaker 1: are we just conflating the two like angels and demons
Speaker 1: and aliens just using different words. I think that. I
Speaker 1: think that the probability is high. It's very very high.
Speaker 1: If I think there's if there's one thing that we
Speaker 1: can all agree on, no matter what side of the
Speaker 1: aisle you're on, no matter what faction of disclosure you're in,
Speaker 1: I think we can all agree that evil exists. Evil exists,
Speaker 1: and it is tangible when you when you get around it.
Speaker 1: I don't know, And so a lot of people like
Speaker 1: Gary Nolan has specifically worked in that area, and uh
Speaker 1: like the effects from being around UFOs, cancer, damage to
Speaker 1: the eyes, like like retinal burns, skin u skin diseases,
Speaker 1: skin cancer again, just cancer in general. But you look
Speaker 1: at cases like Jim Peniston at Rendelsham weird, Travis Walton weird, Right,
Speaker 1: so aage of disclosure doesn't really get into any of
Speaker 1: the truth like cases, but they do touch on some
Speaker 1: of the nuclear ones. Bob Jacobs, I gotta ask, has
Speaker 1: anyone ever heard that Terry Lovelace story, because that is
Speaker 1: not the one the story that I know about Terry.
Speaker 1: I when I had heard Terry was in the movie,
Speaker 1: I was like, Oh, that's odd. He doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: fit the bill and no, no offense to him, but
Speaker 1: his case doesn't really line up with the others, at
Speaker 1: least what they were going for. And then he tells
Speaker 1: this kind of like mundane story of seeing a giant craft.
Speaker 1: Not that not seeing a giant craft's mundane, but in
Speaker 1: terms of like the ran picture a grand scheme of it,
Speaker 1: it seemed just didn't I don't know, it wasn't the
Speaker 1: Terry lovely story that I was used to. Maybe he
Speaker 1: said multiple and I just didn't know. Stylized as far
Speaker 1: as tone, tone was fantastic. This movie felt like it
Speaker 1: flew by for me. The pacing, the tone, the editing
Speaker 1: all so like top of the line, and that's what
Speaker 1: I'm excited for. Do you guys think that this movie
Speaker 1: could actually move the needle? When someone asked me that,
Speaker 1: I said, probably not, but I think the phenomenon, I
Speaker 1: think word of mouth for that movie was what really
Speaker 1: made that film successful, generally successful, The Doctor Greer one unacknowledged,
Speaker 1: Like there's a word of mouth spread on those films.
Speaker 1: So do I think that will happen here with age
Speaker 1: of disclosure potentially with guys like Rogan and them plugging
Speaker 1: in as much as they are. Yeah, it probably will
Speaker 1: get seen by a lot of people. So there is
Speaker 1: and there's even whispers now of like a presidential advisory
Speaker 1: board being implicated or I'm not implicated initiated. So and
Speaker 1: I think Trump could be I tweeted about this the
Speaker 1: other day last night. In fact, where if I was
Speaker 1: in my second term and I was known for like
Speaker 1: going against the grain, like he is going against like
Speaker 1: the deep state, if you will, quote unquote, we might
Speaker 1: have an actual shot with this guy to step up
Speaker 1: to the podium and at least and it might not
Speaker 1: come in the way and this is the thing, It
Speaker 1: might not come in the way that everyone's prophesied before.
Speaker 1: He might be on the podium talking about something and
Speaker 1: then slip it in slip and by slipping in, I
Speaker 1: mean like it wouldn't just be a press conference that
Speaker 1: UFOs exist, like, it would be something else, and then
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about that, but I
Speaker 1: just it won't be like pure disclosure moments like that moment.
Speaker 1: It won't be the my fellow Americans. You know, I
Speaker 1: feel like I picture I always picture Barack Obama. I'm
Speaker 1: saying that my fellow Americans. Trump doesn't say my fellow
Speaker 1: Americans and speetures. I don't think like we're not alone.
Speaker 1: We never were something like that. But h I've had
Speaker 1: a lot of fine looking boys come up and tell
Speaker 1: me that UFOs are real, saying his Trump voice be hilarious,
Speaker 1: fucking hilarious, but people wouldn't believe him just because he's Trump.
Speaker 1: I think. So it would have to be like a
Speaker 1: unified NATO effort. Maybe even maybe if you can get
Speaker 1: the United States and Russia to do it at the
Speaker 1: same time. I think you have a real disclosure there.
Speaker 1: So you know, maybe if if Trump were to do it,
Speaker 1: pulled the trayer on it, maybe Putin would follow, right,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe President She would follow, So then they could
Speaker 1: be more open about their subjugation and exploitation efforts, because again,
Speaker 1: you can't tell your friends about telling your enemies. So
Speaker 1: if everybody knows that everybody knows. Well, then we're back
Speaker 1: on evil. I'm not evil equal playing field. So there's
Speaker 1: a lot of people in this movie. Like I said, totally,
Speaker 1: I think it works very well. I think the message
Speaker 1: that they're trying to send is that there's a legacy
Speaker 1: UFO program. And Lakatski, in the recent episode of Weaponize,
Speaker 1: had been asked this but from Jeremy Corbel, and I
Speaker 1: think I know now why he asked it. The timing
Speaker 1: wasn't the timing was not coincidence, but he asked Lakatski
Speaker 1: had he been read into any other legacy UFO program.
Speaker 1: And Lakatski, doing what a good former DIA officer would do,
Speaker 1: he deflects and says, I can't answer that, but here
Speaker 1: are my clearances. I held a cute clearance. That's public information.
Speaker 1: I think he's trying to say yes, right, He's trying
Speaker 1: to say yes in the way that they do. I
Speaker 1: think Lakatski was read in on the legacy UFO program,
Speaker 1: the one that is the bad guy in age of Disclosure,
Speaker 1: because they're like the ones that are apparently putting hits
Speaker 1: out on Alizondo. That's crazy. If that's true, that's crazy.
Speaker 1: Like no one Alizondo like, I think he could hold
Speaker 1: his own as a counter intel guy. Probably knows what's up,
Speaker 1: probably as like a bunker of his own somewhere. So
Speaker 1: I but putting the head on that guy from the
Speaker 1: legacy UFO program. If that's true, that's wild right, Because
Speaker 1: now we're talking and he says it in the movie.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna spoil this because I told it, told
Speaker 1: you I wouldn't. He says something in the movie at
Speaker 1: the end, fucking wild, wild wild, and he says it
Speaker 1: with a straight face. Anyone who knows the movie will
Speaker 1: know what I'm talking about. But what he says that
Speaker 1: the United States is able to do to its citizens
Speaker 1: if needed, if they pose a threat. Ooh man. So
Speaker 1: if he ends up in the Potomac, I guess we
Speaker 1: know what happened. And maybe he was genuine. I really
Speaker 1: like there's one. So anyone who knows Alexando knows that
Speaker 1: he's a five observables guy. Did he My favorite part
Speaker 1: of this movie was the way that they conveyed that
Speaker 1: it was like Alexander teaching it. It was the funniest
Speaker 1: thing I'd ever seen of my fucking life. I laughed
Speaker 1: so hard. But I will say with with some of
Speaker 1: the issues that I had, like I said, and and
Speaker 1: some of the issues that I had, I think I've
Speaker 1: already got over them. That's it's really all of it.
Speaker 1: It's the off SAP a tip thing. That is where
Speaker 1: I'm like, we, I think we need more clarity. So
Speaker 1: Dan Farra puts together Age of Disclosure. Alissando is the
Speaker 1: main character. Elisondo testified, I was there, testified before Congress.
Speaker 1: Will not say anything that will not well, will not
Speaker 1: say anything that the d D has not approved him
Speaker 1: to say him. Hal put Off and Eric Davis are
Speaker 1: involved in the program to some degree and are trying
Speaker 1: to tell us that there's another legacy program that has
Speaker 1: been performing crash retrieval programs. David Grush has talked about this,
Speaker 1: what's that other guy? J Jake Barber has talked about this.
Speaker 1: Michael Herrera has talked about this. Now Lakatski, if you
Speaker 1: want to say it, has talked about this, that there's
Speaker 1: a legacy UFO program. So if there's one thing that
Speaker 1: I think I took from it is that the legacy
Speaker 1: UFO program is something that like whether it's ConA blue
Speaker 1: or something different, not not ConA blue. Why did I
Speaker 1: say that? Whether it's something we've never heard of before
Speaker 1: or something that we might have heard of through other people.
Speaker 1: So another thing that was left out of Age of
Speaker 1: disclosure was the amacic consolation stuff. They did have a
Speaker 1: good I think it was in the probably was in
Speaker 1: the film at one point, but was then taken out
Speaker 1: because it seemed like they had a clear in when
Speaker 1: they started talking about this moment that Alexander testified. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm it's fine, it's funny because I met Alexander outside
Speaker 1: of the hearing that day. I didn't see any cameras
Speaker 1: with him, not cameras that were because they had some
Speaker 1: footage in this movie from those hearings that I'd never
Speaker 1: seen before, particularly the Alexander walking in right. But I
Speaker 1: was out there when he walked inside. I had left
Speaker 1: the room because I had got my seat in the hearing,
Speaker 1: and I had left and then walked outside, and all
Speaker 1: the witnesses were there out there, and you can kind
Speaker 1: of see it in the film. They're all out there
Speaker 1: like talking to each other, and that's when Ali Zonda
Speaker 1: starts walking in. Unless they redid that for like dramatic effect,
Speaker 1: which would be fine making movies is sometimes you know,
Speaker 1: you didn't get everything the first run, But there was
Speaker 1: some footage in there that I loved that was like
Speaker 1: from the hearings itself. And there's one moment where like
Speaker 1: David Framer like winks at the camera. That was fucking brilliant.
Speaker 1: Whoever edited that moment brilliant. So they must have been
Speaker 1: filming this for a long time in secret. I think
Speaker 1: what he said on the Rogan interview is around four years.
Speaker 1: So this film, this has been being filmed for four
Speaker 1: years while that's happening, Eric Davis and all of them,
Speaker 1: the UAB Disclosure Fund, they go to Congress that other time.
Speaker 1: A lot of that got included in the film. So
Speaker 1: I just want to know what got left on the
Speaker 1: cutting room floor. I would see if they could maybe
Speaker 1: do like a follow up or like maybe even like
Speaker 1: a director's cut. I think would be cool to show
Speaker 1: us some like the uncut interviews, like like like Bob Sallas,
Speaker 1: Bob Jacobs, Mario. I think they probably only had like
Speaker 1: a little bit of screen time in the actual cut,
Speaker 1: but you have to assume that they filmed like thirty
Speaker 1: forty minute interviews with these guys, So I'd be willing
Speaker 1: to see those or I'd want to I'd definitely be
Speaker 1: willing to pay for some sort of director's cut that
Speaker 1: like incorporated more of those interviews. But again, you know,
Speaker 1: I think Dan was doing what Dan was telling the
Speaker 1: story that he was told that he was, like Alexander's
Speaker 1: the main character. Alexander tells that story. So if you're
Speaker 1: going in expecting to hear something different, I guess you won't.
Speaker 1: You probably won't see anything new, but what you see,
Speaker 1: what you will see is is a director that has
Speaker 1: worked on some amazing films, Ready Player one being one
Speaker 1: of them. He's worked with Spielberg that when those people
Speaker 1: start taking it seriously, what this movie is is a
Speaker 1: very serious take on the national security implications of UFOs
Speaker 1: existing and breaching our nuclear sites and our most sensitive facilities.
Speaker 1: They definitely want to get that message across. They definitely
Speaker 1: got the message across. My issue with that is, I
Speaker 1: think it's one side of the story. Why are these
Speaker 1: things breaching our nuclear sites is a much better question.
Speaker 1: I don't think they're there to blow us up. I
Speaker 1: think we're fundamentally the problem. Human beings are the problem.
Speaker 1: Too aggressive, too emotional, That's why I waited to do
Speaker 1: this review. I was gonna do it the night at
Speaker 1: Friday night when it came out, right after I watched it.
Speaker 1: But I was so like dialed to ten that I
Speaker 1: knew I wouldn't. It would have come off wrong, and
Speaker 1: I don't want that. A lot of really cool what
Speaker 1: I will say that Marco Rubio, Marco Rubio, Jay Stratton,
Speaker 1: Eric Davis how put off probably worse standouts the main
Speaker 1: characters they got probably the most screen time, Gary Nolan,
Speaker 1: Tim Gradat, Jeff new To Telly trying to go through
Speaker 1: my head right now. A lot of them are in
Speaker 1: it great stuff. Like the amount that they were throwing
Speaker 1: at you was so overwhelmingly like like these guys that
Speaker 1: they're putting in front of you, the credibility that is
Speaker 1: instituted just by their you know, cvs. We're talking decades
Speaker 1: in decades and decades of service to this country. Whether
Speaker 1: it was a in a capacity that was you know,
Speaker 1: in the military or intelligence is different. But they had
Speaker 1: it all star studed cast, star studed cast. But and
Speaker 1: they did start talk about some cool stuff how they think,
Speaker 1: like what the what the main theory that they have
Speaker 1: is for how these things work and or how they operate,
Speaker 1: how they not how they work, but how they how
Speaker 1: they do, what they do, why we observe them, you know,
Speaker 1: seemingly defying physics. I don't think they are defying physics,
Speaker 1: but seemingly banking a ninety deg return, which would turn
Speaker 1: any human into putting. To quote Helt put Off, I
Speaker 1: can't do the fravor wink, but they definitely got I
Speaker 1: think they're onto something there. And what I really like
Speaker 1: is that they didn't get into like specifying whether it
Speaker 1: was aliens or something interdimensional. A lot of talk about
Speaker 1: like Andre Carson was in this. Andre Carson brings up
Speaker 1: some of the USO stuff, and that again, that's where
Speaker 1: they go at. Tim got at. I just think we
Speaker 1: could have gone in a little deeper, which would have
Speaker 1: been cool. It would have been cool. But I get it.
Speaker 1: Run time, you have to get it to a place
Speaker 1: like as a filmmaker, you need to lock it in
Speaker 1: and you need it to be digestible, and you need
Speaker 1: there to be a story arc, like a through to
Speaker 1: through story arc, right, and a message that you're trying
Speaker 1: to send. And the message I think the film is
Speaker 1: trying to say is that these things are real, and
Speaker 1: I agree with that and that that we need to
Speaker 1: that it warrants further investigation. I agree with that, it's
Speaker 1: just the people that are telling it to you. That
Speaker 1: you know, if you have any biases that you're gonna
Speaker 1: it's you're not gonna want to watch it. Like if
Speaker 1: you don't like Alizondo, you're not gonna want to watch
Speaker 1: it because you're not gonna believe them. You already have
Speaker 1: a preconceived notion to not I don't I like the guy,
Speaker 1: So you know, I I can watch it and kind
Speaker 1: of remove myself from that and still ask the questions
Speaker 1: that need to be asked and at least take something
Speaker 1: from it. I thought it was, like I said, very
Speaker 1: interesting that they talked about the religious aspect and how
Speaker 1: that played a big part. Like Jay Stratton specifically was
Speaker 1: very very like stunned by this. They couldn't believe that
Speaker 1: they were getting pushed back from religious fundamentalists. If you
Speaker 1: weren't getting pushed back from religious fundamentalists, I'd have a
Speaker 1: weird I'd have a much bigger issue with that. I
Speaker 1: have a much bigger issue with that because that that's like,
Speaker 1: because that that would mean like even they don't believe
Speaker 1: it's true. But so yeah, a lot of the TTSA people,
Speaker 1: So you see Chris Mellon Elizondo, uh and with TTSA,
Speaker 1: you know how how put off Eric Davis, Travis Tailor
Speaker 1: Travis Taylor was another one. They are all involved in
Speaker 1: some degree on the other side of the line, and
Speaker 1: their allegiance is to the safety of this nation, which
Speaker 1: is commendable. Of course I want to be safe. I
Speaker 1: live in this country. But what I just don't like
Speaker 1: playing both sides. I don't like when people play both
Speaker 1: sides bothers me And I get why you can only
Speaker 1: say what you can say legally, but don't don't tell
Speaker 1: me that something's gonna happen. And I'm gonna wish I
Speaker 1: knew sooner. Wish I knew what, wish I knew? What?
Speaker 1: What am I not preparing for? What are we not
Speaker 1: preparing for? It's upsetting, It really is. It's upsetting. But
Speaker 1: I really liked Under Carson and brought up a lot
Speaker 1: of the USO stuff. I think that Richard Dolan, if
Speaker 1: anyone does want to dive into us Richard Dolan is
Speaker 1: one of the best people for that. A lot of
Speaker 1: good people in the movie. Again, like I said, Gary Nolan,
Speaker 1: and I think I've gone through Bob Jacobs, Jay Straw
Speaker 1: and not technically Ross Coultart, but he was in it.
Speaker 1: They did touch on the grush stuff, which I find
Speaker 1: I didn't. I feel like they didn't touch enough on
Speaker 1: the grush stuff. I was wondering why maybe that would
Speaker 1: be in a sequel or something. But I like the movie.
Speaker 1: I like the movie. I like the movie. I do.
Speaker 1: I do. So what I gave it, what I talited
Speaker 1: out as with with some of the problems that I
Speaker 1: had and some of the not some of the things
Speaker 1: I liked, it ended up peeing uh, seven point nine
Speaker 1: out of ten. So that was my final score was
Speaker 1: seven point nine out of ten, which is a great score.
Speaker 1: The Phenomenon came out like eight point four from James Fox.
Speaker 1: That same day that Age of Disclosure came out, which
Speaker 1: you'll have to see if you want to know the
Speaker 1: ins and outs. Again, I don't want to go into
Speaker 1: too much detail about what was talked about so without
Speaker 1: just being general. Like the legacy UFO program, which I
Speaker 1: think they get into a lot of cool stuff with
Speaker 1: that and how it's broken down. I think all of
Speaker 1: us have had this inkling that the CIA was the
Speaker 1: main proponent or the overseer, and then under that was
Speaker 1: Department of Energy, right, Department of Energy, A lot of
Speaker 1: things like Department of Energy, I think is a very
Speaker 1: unique one because when like Grush talked about this, and
Speaker 1: I think it was the Jesse Michaels the see Michael's
Speaker 1: video after his Coultart interview, but he was talking about
Speaker 1: the classification process for the atomic secrecy and anything that
Speaker 1: emits a radiological signature is born classified. So the Air Force,
Speaker 1: the Department of Energy, CIA, and then private contractors. I
Speaker 1: mean somewhere in there is the legacy UFO program a
Speaker 1: name of or maybe several programs, but there's definitely crash
Speaker 1: retrieval happening. What do they have in their possession? I
Speaker 1: think Rubio brings up a lot of great stuff in
Speaker 1: this movie about how that stuff can run away in
Speaker 1: the long term, right because government gives it to the contractor.
Speaker 1: Senator is only senator for so long. The next guy
Speaker 1: comes in, he has a frack of the knowledge the
Speaker 1: first guy started with, and then the the guy that
Speaker 1: comes in after that guy has zero percent knowledge and
Speaker 1: never knew that this thing existed that they gave to
Speaker 1: the contractor. So then the contractor just doesn't say anything
Speaker 1: and they keep exploiting the technology, and then they come
Speaker 1: out to the public and you know, they got this breakthrough,
Speaker 1: this breakthrough, you know, fiber optics if you want to
Speaker 1: use an example, or the transistor. All these things have
Speaker 1: been rumored, maybe even AI rumored to have been reverse
Speaker 1: engineered from alien or not alien, but non human technology.
Speaker 1: And with some of these crashes, biologics came with them. Grush.
Speaker 1: I believe Grush. I believe Grush, Everyone believed. Everyone seems
Speaker 1: to have the same notion of Grush, So I find
Speaker 1: that to be kind of comforting. But then there's other
Speaker 1: people on the other side, on the other like Debunker
Speaker 1: side that saw his you know, he had a couple
Speaker 1: like mental issue mental breakdowns PTSD, and they like that
Speaker 1: that's all that that's the nail in the coffin for them.
Speaker 1: Nothing he ever says will be true to them because
Speaker 1: they've already convinced themselves that this is bullshit. And that's
Speaker 1: the problem. We're facing a lot in this community, and
Speaker 1: it sucks. It's a lot of stories without the average
Speaker 1: person who can't sit around and fully your shit to
Speaker 1: you get like you, they're expected to take your word.
Speaker 1: I mean, and and and when it comes to al Zondo, like, dude,
Speaker 1: you're literally a disinformation person. That was your job, but
Speaker 1: now everyone's just supposed to blindly like believe it. And
Speaker 1: I think the general person doesn't like wouldn't have to
Speaker 1: be lied to to convince them that we're not alone.
Speaker 1: I think if you surveyed one hundred people fifty years ago,
Speaker 1: maybe sixty years ago, ninety nine out of one hundred
Speaker 1: would have said we were alone. I think if you
Speaker 1: take that same survey today, ninety nine will say we're
Speaker 1: not alone. That the statistical improbability of the vastness of
Speaker 1: the cosmos, the sheer scale an age of the known universe,
Speaker 1: there's such if we're alone. I think that's arguably fucking scarier,
Speaker 1: arguably scarier than the cosmos teeming with life. So I
Speaker 1: guess my main contention, like I said, with this, is
Speaker 1: the is the the bigelow stuff, right, the big old stuff.
Speaker 1: And then people like Carbel, oh Jesus he was young
Speaker 1: in that picture. Corbel, who seem to know both sides,
Speaker 1: but don't pick one, not not pick one, but enlighten us,
Speaker 1: Like you can't interview Lukatski and ask the things that
Speaker 1: you ask him and then like call Alizondo up and
Speaker 1: be like, hey, dude, we're dudes, we're besties. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can, but people take note of that shit. And
Speaker 1: I think that's where our problem is right now, is
Speaker 1: like you you either have to be with Alizondo or
Speaker 1: you're against him, and that that's again another thing that's
Speaker 1: a dangerous place to be. And he is the main
Speaker 1: character of this story. He's the main character of the
Speaker 1: New York Times article. He's the main character of that
Speaker 1: show Investigate whatever that he did on with National Geograph?
Speaker 1: Uh is it National Geographic that he did it with?
Speaker 1: Maybe unidentified? That show, he's the main character on that.
Speaker 1: So if you had seen all that stuff, none of
Speaker 1: this will be new, none of the people will be new.
Speaker 1: The way the information is presented is in a really
Speaker 1: cool way and in a modern, very serious way. So
Speaker 1: that's the difference. And I think if we can rally
Speaker 1: around that aspect of it, we might be able to
Speaker 1: push the ball forward. And uh, I think in the
Speaker 1: movie they call for the amnesty aspect, and I'm just
Speaker 1: wondering like why this, and then the amnesty and the
Speaker 1: what's the other thing, the the domain, the domain or
Speaker 1: they can seize everything. The government can like seize shit,
Speaker 1: like people like Jacques Vallet have raised question about that
Speaker 1: and concern about that of that domain aspect where the
Speaker 1: government can just seize things because if we give them
Speaker 1: that right back, or if we give that ability to
Speaker 1: our government, they never have to give you an explanation
Speaker 1: on why they're seizing what you have, and they could
Speaker 1: just say, well, we have we have it on good
Speaker 1: authority that it's non human and we need it, and
Speaker 1: we're going to seize this this technology that you have,
Speaker 1: this material that you have, and they don't have to
Speaker 1: give you an excuse. It's that's part of it. So
Speaker 1: that is why the UAP Disclosure Act had a lot
Speaker 1: of problems. People had a lot of problems with that
Speaker 1: part of it and the amnesty part. But I do
Speaker 1: think we're gonna have to meet the legacy programs halfway,
Speaker 1: maybe not full amnesty, but only for those who come
Speaker 1: forward and tell the truth. Right those people, maybe given
Speaker 1: that you didn't murder somebody to keep this secret, you
Speaker 1: should be safe, right, you should be safe at least
Speaker 1: not have your life taken away. But if you engaged
Speaker 1: in activity that harmed, hurt or killed people to cover
Speaker 1: this secret up, there's no amnesty for you. Whether you
Speaker 1: get it here on earth or in the next life,
Speaker 1: there's no amnesty. You will be punished sooner or later.
Speaker 1: The universe works in very funny ways like that. So
Speaker 1: if anyone out there, if you are part of this
Speaker 1: and you are like this, I'm not talking to Alixander,
Speaker 1: but all of them, anybody that makes a clean that
Speaker 1: UFOs are real, if they are lying or embellishing, yeah,
Speaker 1: it will hurt us. You're only gonna have to answer
Speaker 1: to one person, and that's yourself. And if you want
Speaker 1: to lie to become famous or to get like Dan
Speaker 1: Farr to do a thing about you, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: your prerogative, but at the end of the day, you
Speaker 1: will answer for it eventually. So I just don't think
Speaker 1: it's worth it if that is what you are doing.
Speaker 1: That's to anyone, any UFO quote unquote whistleblower, if you're
Speaker 1: not telling the truth, you're only hurting yourself. You're just
Speaker 1: lying to yourself and you're making the rest of the
Speaker 1: people in the community. You look stupid. We'll pay a price,
Speaker 1: but we'll move forward. You will have to answer for that,
Speaker 1: whether it's to your God or do you whatever, the
Speaker 1: universe or the simulators, You're gonna fucking answer for it.
Speaker 1: I want to trust guys like Gary Nolan. I want
Speaker 1: to trust guys like how put off in Eric Davis.
Speaker 1: I want to trust Elizondo. I want to trust Tim Goddet.
Speaker 1: I do trump Tim Gott I do. I want to
Speaker 1: trust these people, and maybe that's maybe that's my blind
Speaker 1: spot that I want to believe and if anyone is
Speaker 1: taking advantage of that want that I have to believe.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've seen something. I've seen things that I
Speaker 1: can't explain. I know it's real, but whether what you're
Speaker 1: you everyone, the modern disclosure narrative is real, whether that
Speaker 1: part of it's real, or if it's just a way
Speaker 1: to see chaos, get people riled up and then maybe
Speaker 1: get some funding. Like what was it all for? Are
Speaker 1: they about to like false flag us? Are they about
Speaker 1: to trick us and think into an alien invasion to
Speaker 1: unite humanity? Doesn't seem so far fetched all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: But I wanted to watch a couple of clips, not
Speaker 1: of the movie. We'll get immediately taken down. But I
Speaker 1: recommend watching it. I recommend, I recommend paying the money.
Speaker 1: I'm watching it. It's a good movie if you if
Speaker 1: you like if you're in the disclosure, like, if you
Speaker 1: have any vested interest in not vested, if you have
Speaker 1: an interest in disclosure, you'll like the movie. You'll like it.
Speaker 1: It's good. It's very well done. The score is immaculate
Speaker 1: as well. That was something I needed to bring up.
Speaker 1: That's what rose it to like point. I don't want
Speaker 1: to say how much it rose it, but that that
Speaker 1: rose the score of the film for me was the
Speaker 1: the score. The music of the movie was really good,
Speaker 1: really really good. But I wanted to watch why have You?
Speaker 1: I wanted to watch part of this apparently Grush one
Speaker 1: on Fox News. I haven't watched it yet, so I
Speaker 1: wanted to see maybe we canna watch together. They might
Speaker 1: demonetize this video because of that. But after that, I'll
Speaker 1: start going through reading some of the comments. If anyone,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you want to ask something or let
Speaker 1: me know what you thought of the movie, maybe we're
Speaker 1: gonna have a quick recap of that, like did you
Speaker 1: guys think it was overall good. I thought it was good.
Speaker 1: I thought it was great. I just have a couple issues,
Speaker 1: just a couple issues. Let me know, let me know
Speaker 1: what you think. I bet people are. I mean, I'd
Speaker 1: be interested to see what like Veted that dude is
Speaker 1: saying and uh Polarity. Those are two people that I've
Speaker 1: been paying attention too lately, not paying attention to because
Speaker 1: I think they are right, but they're doing something right. Sorry,
Speaker 1: I gotta share this here. It is boom. So I
Speaker 1: haven't watched this yet, but David Grush, who was part
Speaker 1: of Age of Disclosure, not a huge part, but he
Speaker 1: went on Fox News with Brett Bear and did the interview.
Speaker 1: So I just want to watch a couple of minutes
Speaker 1: of it with you dudes, with you peeps.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the special report.
Speaker 1: Let me know what you thought of Age of Disclosure.
Speaker 1: If you can send a super chat, come a member.
Speaker 1: Really really helps. And I'm gonna be doing so many
Speaker 1: more live streams now that the internet is fixed. Here
Speaker 1: one of my cameras died, so I'm just back to
Speaker 1: one angle. But I'm really like gonna start building out
Speaker 1: and doing more of these live shows. Yeah, but final
Speaker 1: takeaways for Age of Disclosure. I think, at least for
Speaker 1: what I'll say about it is I have some issue
Speaker 1: with some of the things that are some of the
Speaker 1: background and some of the details, but I think the
Speaker 1: overall effort was really well done. It was probably done
Speaker 1: with a good intent on Dan Fower's part. I think
Speaker 1: he's a very very talented filmmaker, and if you know,
Speaker 1: guys like him continue to make movies in this realm
Speaker 1: of the topic. I think the sky's the limit, and
Speaker 1: I think the moon the needle could be moved. I'm
Speaker 1: already hearing people taught whispering about a presidential presidential investigation
Speaker 1: into this, So I mean it's getting people talking, it's
Speaker 1: doing its job. I guess let's check out this. Check
Speaker 1: out this interview GRESHI. Where was that op that he
Speaker 1: was supposed to do?
Speaker 2: Continue our series looking at unidentified anominalists anomalists say that
Speaker 2: easy what many people still call UFOs UAPs with the
Speaker 2: director of the Age of Disclosure. It's a new documentary
Speaker 2: out about a suspected government cover up over UAPs for decades,
Speaker 2: which they used Tonight and select theaters around the country.
Speaker 2: Is also available on Prime Video it's.
Speaker 1: Powerful, just gonna be careful.
Speaker 2: In thirty four former and current government officials, including witnesses
Speaker 2: who have testified before Congress. Earlier, we spoke with another
Speaker 2: whistleblower who is now a Congressional Task Force member on
Speaker 2: the UAP subject.
Speaker 8: If you believe we have crashed craft stated earlier, do
Speaker 8: we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?
Speaker 7: Biologics came with some of these recoveries?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Were they?
Speaker 1: I guess human or non human? Biologics?
Speaker 7: Non human?
Speaker 2: Well, let's get some insight into the UAP discovers and
Speaker 2: what Congress is trying to do about it.
Speaker 1: Do I have the wrong interview here? Guys? Is the
Speaker 1: Grush interview really only seven minutes?
Speaker 2: Ing US now retired Air Force Major David Grush, who
Speaker 2: has been a whistleblower on the subject of UFOs, UAPs
Speaker 2: and government transparency. He's a special advisor now to the
Speaker 2: House UAP Task Force. Thanks for being here, think you're
Speaker 2: having on Brett. So since then, people say, where is
Speaker 2: the evidence? What's happening? Why don't we know more? Right
Speaker 2: now almost two years later.
Speaker 7: Well, certainly the last administration didn't didn't help in My hearing,
Speaker 7: of course, was during the last administration, and they were
Speaker 7: not exactly super transparent on this issue unfortunately. But now
Speaker 7: that the task force has been created, I've been able
Speaker 7: to guide the members within the boundaries of what they're
Speaker 7: actually clear.
Speaker 1: When people, as from the most recent.
Speaker 2: Lit I just say, there's a lot out there. There's
Speaker 2: a lot of people talking about encounters. There's a lot
Speaker 2: of people talking about videos, and we've seen a lot
Speaker 2: of that. Can we just cut it down to you
Speaker 2: believe that we have encountered alien beings and that they've
Speaker 2: come to Earth, and that we know about it as
Speaker 2: a US government.
Speaker 7: That seems to be a case I don't like to
Speaker 7: characterize necessarily where they came from. There are definitely some
Speaker 7: kind of non human sentience, but it is true, believe
Speaker 7: it or not. We've recovered the vehicles and we actually
Speaker 7: have physical proof. And I was actually partially cleared into
Speaker 7: some of those activities. It was beyond the oral testimony
Speaker 7: provided to me. I actually had partial access to the
Speaker 7: data and actually read the intelligence reports resulting from those
Speaker 7: programs with your own eyes.
Speaker 1: Saw it.
Speaker 2: Yes. And so when people say this is kooky, this
Speaker 2: is out there, there's nothing to back it up.
Speaker 4: I don't seek for other parts of the government, but
Speaker 4: I can tell you NASA, which I speak for, is
Speaker 4: open and transparent with our data.
Speaker 3: Do you believe what mister David Cross said or is lying?
Speaker 5: Where's the evidence?
Speaker 4: What do you say?
Speaker 7: Certainly members of this current administration are very well aware
Speaker 7: of this reality. Certainly the current president is very knowledgeable
Speaker 7: on this subject, and I trust his leadership on it,
Speaker 7: and I think he's assembled in an a team cabinet,
Speaker 7: and I really belie leave if Trump wants to be
Speaker 7: the greatest president and the most consequential leader likely in
Speaker 7: world history, he certainly has to knowledge the capabilities and
Speaker 7: understanding of some of these sensitive government transparency issues.
Speaker 4: I have access, but and I speak to people about it.
Speaker 4: I've had actually meetings on it. People that are very
Speaker 4: smart and very solid have said they believe there is
Speaker 4: something out there, and you know, it makes sense that
Speaker 4: they could be. I've never been convinced, even despite that,
Speaker 4: you know, I just for some reason it's.
Speaker 6: Not my thing.
Speaker 2: So you think, one he knows, and two he's open
Speaker 2: to transparency on UAPs.
Speaker 7: He certainly is very well informed on this issue.
Speaker 2: Leave it at that.
Speaker 7: I don't want to get ahead of what the president
Speaker 7: might want to reveal. Personally.
Speaker 2: There's been a role to cover this up, you're saying,
Speaker 2: through administrations, and there have been people who have been
Speaker 2: threatened and told not to testify.
Speaker 7: I was physically threatened even before I sent in my
Speaker 7: Intelligence Community Inspector General report under the previous administration. I
Speaker 7: actually had to go and seek legal protection that way
Speaker 7: because I was, you know, literally in fear, both professionally
Speaker 7: and in my personal life.
Speaker 2: And when you mentioned in that testimony of recovering the
Speaker 2: pilots or or remains non human, that's something that you
Speaker 2: saw as far as the intelligence with your eyes.
Speaker 7: Yes, And it is a very uncomfortable even for me
Speaker 7: now as as somebody who's seen and experienced it, even
Speaker 7: talking about it, because it's so outside a normal person's
Speaker 7: worldview to understand that there is this biological sentience set
Speaker 7: have piloted these crafts that don't necessarily look one hundred
Speaker 7: percent like you and I.
Speaker 5: Or their pictures where there there were, yes, there were.
Speaker 2: When I said another planet or from outer space, you
Speaker 2: said not, we don't know where they're from. It's an
Speaker 2: interdimensional what are we talking about.
Speaker 7: I've talked to a lot of i'll called graybeards on
Speaker 7: the program that is a subject of hot debate on origin.
Speaker 7: I've as at else.
Speaker 1: Just think of like Eric Davis with like a Gandolf Beard.
Speaker 1: Someone make that with AI. I just have it Eric Davis,
Speaker 1: but be Gandolf. Uh. That's exactly what interest.
Speaker 7: Of physics formally as well in my background, I leave
Speaker 7: an open mind on what the origin is. Certainly there
Speaker 7: is the extra terrestrial hypothesis, and they could be coming
Speaker 7: from elsewhere off Earth, but I don't usually go there
Speaker 7: because I did not see that data, and I'm not
Speaker 7: conversant in the high confidence theories that the US government had.
Speaker 8: I'm not aware of any remains that the Department has of,
Speaker 8: you know, any signs of extra terrestrial beings or activity
Speaker 8: or technology.
Speaker 1: You say, we the US government note, Okay, see what
Speaker 1: she just said. We, And this is the same thing
Speaker 1: that Kirkpatrick an Arrow take note that they often do.
Speaker 1: Why are they leaning into that word extra terrestrial specifically,
Speaker 1: because if they have not determined, if they really don't
Speaker 1: know where they're from, which that's what it seems to be,
Speaker 1: no one wants to label it, at least from like
Speaker 1: the grush side. They don't want to label it. They
Speaker 1: don't know. But then the government turns around and says,
Speaker 1: we have no proof of extraterrestrial whoa, whoa, whoa. No
Speaker 1: one said that it was just under the extraterrestrial banister
Speaker 1: or banner. It could be future humans, it could be interdimensional.
Speaker 1: Like you. Again, this might be a case of you
Speaker 1: might not be lying. There is no proof that it's
Speaker 1: extra terrestrials per se. Could be coming from our fucking ocean. Right,
Speaker 1: that's not extraterrestrial, that's ultra terrestrial. So are they just
Speaker 1: lying to us by using the correct wording? I think
Speaker 1: that's fair to ask.
Speaker 2: But there are many other governments around the world.
Speaker 7: Did they know they have their own programs? And like
Speaker 7: I said two and a half years ago, we have
Speaker 7: been in arms race with our peer competitors, you know,
Speaker 7: namely Russia and China, and they have their own programs
Speaker 7: in this regard. And I was actually able to view
Speaker 7: a body of intelligence that discussed adversarial programs. And I'll
Speaker 7: leave it at that.
Speaker 2: We've recovered things, you say, yeah, bodies and physical remains.
Speaker 2: Was there a sense that the motive of whether how
Speaker 2: they got here, what they were doing. Was it peaceful?
Speaker 2: Not peaceful?
Speaker 7: We've seen a mixed bag of activity and motive and
Speaker 7: intent why they're visiting. That's once again that gets into
Speaker 7: our assessments. Not necessarily, we can't quite understand the intent
Speaker 7: of some of the sentience and why they're visiting. Could
Speaker 7: it because as we have interesting genetic material on Earth,
Speaker 7: we're a Jurassic Park tourist attraction for them? Could be
Speaker 7: a myriad of reasons.
Speaker 2: For the other people who are coming out, you say
Speaker 2: to them what you've obviously faced, intimidation, You talked about harassment.
Speaker 2: There are reports that others have.
Speaker 7: To I say that there's hope. Certainly Congress values with
Speaker 7: the blower information right now, and certainly I believe there's
Speaker 7: an appetite with the administration to do the right thing
Speaker 7: on this as well. And there's some other things that
Speaker 7: are happening behind the scenes that I'll let the administration
Speaker 7: discuss when they're ready.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, we appreciate your time and we'll follow every element.
Speaker 2: It's fascinating. Thanks.
Speaker 4: Hey, Sean Hannity here, Hey, click here to subscribe to
Speaker 4: Fox News YouTube page.
Speaker 1: Is that really the whole interview? That was the whole thing.
Speaker 1: That was the whole thing. It was there more that
Speaker 1: I'm just like, is that just like a clip? Anyway? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was kind of cool. Maybe we could play is
Speaker 1: maybe there's a clip of Dan Farah on Rogan that
Speaker 1: we could play. I thought that was going to be
Speaker 1: at least fifteen minutes to round out. So anyway, what
Speaker 1: is the poll at on on on YouTube? I have
Speaker 1: a poll put out forty two votes. Okay, did you
Speaker 1: enjoy the new documentary by Dan Farah age of disclosure?
Speaker 1: Sixty percent said yes, fourteen percent said no, twenty six
Speaker 1: percent said more of the same. It was okay, I
Speaker 1: think that's fair. That's fair, that's a very fair. Again,
Speaker 1: that's kind of where I'm at. Sixty percent kind of
Speaker 1: lines up like really well with not really because my
Speaker 1: score is like a seventy nine out of one hundred
Speaker 1: if it's based on like seven to seven pointing out
Speaker 1: of ten. So I guess I was a little higher
Speaker 1: than the audience. But I thought it was well done.
Speaker 1: I thought like the editing it was really really well done.
Speaker 1: Uh specifically the score magnificent, some of the content choices. Again,
Speaker 1: I think we're on the right track, We're on the
Speaker 1: right track. Make no mind, make no mistake, make no
Speaker 1: mistake about it. I don't think that Alessando's a bad person.
Speaker 1: I don't whether and I don't. People want to say
Speaker 1: he is, but I don't think that's true. I don't think.
Speaker 1: I don't think any of those people are bad people.
Speaker 1: I just wonder what they're actually what they actually know.
Speaker 1: Oh and I don't know. I don't want to get
Speaker 1: into that because that's gonna it's just it's just gets
Speaker 1: into speculation, just gets into murky waters. I would I
Speaker 1: really want to hear a lot of these people, you know,
Speaker 1: if they want if there's something we need to know, someone,
Speaker 1: someone's got to break the rules, all right. And it
Speaker 1: seems that that I don't I don't know. I don't know,
Speaker 1: because again you get into other territories. I'm not asking
Speaker 1: anyone to go to jail for life for me so
Speaker 1: and for for for my benefit of information. But I
Speaker 1: think that is a crime against humanity to know that
Speaker 1: we're not alone, to have murdered people, to be actively
Speaker 1: exploiting or connecting with a non human intelligence, and not
Speaker 1: telling the public where the ones, at least in the UNI.
Speaker 1: It states our tax money is paying for this stuff.
Speaker 1: It's like classifying black holes. You can't do that. You
Speaker 1: can't classify reality. It's it doesn't work that way. That's
Speaker 1: an overreach, and it's it's it's it's an overreach, and
Speaker 1: it's it's I would assume breaking some sort of law
Speaker 1: a crime against humanity. Maybe I don't know if that's
Speaker 1: a real punishment, if that's actual law, but it's it's
Speaker 1: very frustrating to as someone tell you that or imply
Speaker 1: that something is like, we're headed for something and were
Speaker 1: we were gonna want to wish we knew sooner that
Speaker 1: that that that hurt me. That hurt me. So I
Speaker 1: don't know. I I thought, like I said, I thought
Speaker 1: the movie is great. I just think I think going forward,
Speaker 1: going going forward, I would love to see Dan jump
Speaker 1: into some actual cases, whether it be military like like
Speaker 1: tiktak and you know, do that that angle like talk
Speaker 1: about military UFO siding specifically. That's fine, that's so fine.
Speaker 1: I would love to see him tackle that. Uh, he probably,
Speaker 1: I'm from the Rogan interview he did, there was a
Speaker 1: few people he talked to that backed out of the
Speaker 1: movie for fear of their reputation. Or fear of what
Speaker 1: the reprisal of being in the film. So, I mean
Speaker 1: he's made connections. Now, so where is this guy gonna land? Right?
Speaker 1: Where is this is he gonna it'd be interesting to seek.
Speaker 1: It's a good case study, I suppose in itself. It
Speaker 1: seems when people get the UFO bug, they get the
Speaker 1: book and then it overtakes like everything, and that's all
Speaker 1: they want is the answers, and they dedicate their life
Speaker 1: to their life, life in their livelihood to finding answers.
Speaker 1: And it's it's it's weird. It's a weird subject like that.
Speaker 1: Not many other subjects do that or niches, right aside
Speaker 1: from maybe like reli religion, I mean, that's not a niche.
Speaker 1: That's a way of life. Is That's what the UFO
Speaker 1: world seems to be. It's like a way of life, right,
Speaker 1: So be interesting. See how how deep the rabbit hole
Speaker 1: that Dan Ferry just opened for himself, See how far
Speaker 1: he'll go with it he apparently he wants. He's already
Speaker 1: working with Jay Stratton on a movie about his life,
Speaker 1: based on his life. This is all from the Rogan
Speaker 1: interview if you want to check it out. He's working
Speaker 1: with a remote Viewer on a Remote Viewing film, as
Speaker 1: well as the Jay Stratton stuff, and then one other
Speaker 1: maybe it was the follow up to Age of Disclosure
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of because I know they did discuss like
Speaker 1: doing something like that, which I think would be fantastic,
Speaker 1: whether it's a director's cut or a direct sequel with
Speaker 1: some of the stuff that you couldn't use from the
Speaker 1: first film. That Like, what I really dislike about movie
Speaker 1: making is there is stuff that gets left on the
Speaker 1: cutting room floor. Some of that stuff's gold, it's just
Speaker 1: you had better material to run with, so sometimes you
Speaker 1: never even see that stuff. And that's a game. Most
Speaker 1: filmmakers will end up make using it to a degree, right,
Speaker 1: most like documentary filmmakers, I think we'll end up using
Speaker 1: it like if they you know, like Greer made all
Speaker 1: the unacknowledged he made the movie, but then he'd like
Speaker 1: released all the interviews on the YouTube channel. That's a
Speaker 1: good way to do it, actually, take nope, take nope,
Speaker 1: that's a good way to do it, all right, guys.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, there's a favorite Underwood who began who In
Speaker 1: my opinion, they were the first domino that really if
Speaker 1: you think about it, if you track it linearly modern disclosure,
Speaker 1: the modern disclosure movement as we see it now, or
Speaker 1: as we look at it now, I would say the
Speaker 1: Tiktac case is right up there with Roswell, in which
Speaker 1: case I mean, in which I will say, in the
Speaker 1: age of disclosure, they do talk about Roswell and how
Speaker 1: it was real. So they take that. I mean, they
Speaker 1: took us a chance. There a stance there which I
Speaker 1: think you know it's it's in the context, right the
Speaker 1: people that are telling you this, they should be trustworthy.
Speaker 1: You should be able to take what they say it
Speaker 1: to the bank, unless they're trying to sighop you. Of course,
Speaker 1: do we know that that's the case. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. If I knew, trust me, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: be having such an internal dilemma when when I'm watching
Speaker 1: these movies, I would just pick a fucking side and
Speaker 1: lean into it. You make more that way. But here
Speaker 1: I am still with my questions. So uh yeah, I'd
Speaker 1: like to I'd definitely like to see all the uncut interviews.
Speaker 1: What do you guys think, any comments? I should get
Speaker 1: to Gene my man Jeane just throwing the ten dollars
Speaker 1: around with no actual text to quote, thank you Gene,
Speaker 1: love you him and that will be coming on soon
Speaker 1: that we'll probably do it live. Maybe we'll do it live.
Speaker 1: I have the camera switcher and stuff. Now we can
Speaker 1: do it live. It'd be fun. It's a clip of
Speaker 1: a longer Oh so that's seven minutes. That was just
Speaker 1: a clip because it did feel like it was cutting
Speaker 1: at weird places. So was that just a clip? And
Speaker 1: there's a long David Crush interview that I'm not that
Speaker 1: I didn't see. I'm not going to play any more
Speaker 1: of it. I think seven minutes is a good amount
Speaker 1: to play. What you'd think the reactions it was an hour?
Speaker 1: What that was it? We're not alone, scooby doo, all right,
Speaker 1: thank you guys. Yeah, that is the that was the interview. Uh,
Speaker 1: that's fucking crazy. Seven minutes. Yeah, a lot of it
Speaker 1: isn't here here. That's what I felt like. I know
Speaker 1: a lot of other people are like, dude, there's a
Speaker 1: bunch of fucking white guys telling you about disclosure, and
Speaker 1: I'm like, dude, that is not how I saw that.
Speaker 1: But I mean, Andre Carson is not white. That's one person,
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio, that I don't think is white. I think
Speaker 1: he's like, yeah, it's a lot of old white guys
Speaker 1: in ufology. Get used to it. There's a lot more
Speaker 1: people coming on board now though, so the old dimers,
Speaker 1: like the people that have been in it long enough
Speaker 1: long I should say, yeah, predominantly white, white males. But
Speaker 1: it's not like that anymore. So please don't use that,
Speaker 1: please please anyway, let me know in the comments if
Speaker 1: you're watching in the future, I would like to hear
Speaker 1: your thoughts on age of disclosure. I think it might.
Speaker 1: I think it has a chance to actually to do
Speaker 1: some good. I think it has a chance. I had
Speaker 1: a bunch of notes. I didn't even really go through. Wait,
Speaker 1: I went through Lakatski in all sap, hate Tip, James
Speaker 1: Clapper's perjury to Congress, all the witnesses really one to
Speaker 1: three minutes of screen time. Well, the rest was kind
Speaker 1: of just the New York Times article narrative set forth
Speaker 1: at twenty seventeen. You can't have it both ways. You
Speaker 1: can't be wrong and celebrate said story. And I went
Speaker 1: over all this aside from some mentions and quick clips,
Speaker 1: I think I got to everything. It does set the stage.
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, so it sets the stage for what
Speaker 1: comes to next. The only direction I can see would
Speaker 1: be physical evidence. That's the only thing that I think
Speaker 1: would unanimously silence critics and intrigue. Science is physical evidence,
Speaker 1: so logically doubt for me. If the advancement in this
Speaker 1: topic is to happen, physical evidence needs to come out.
Speaker 1: I know that there's other things that constitute as physical
Speaker 1: evidence that exist already, but we need something for the
Speaker 1: general public, like from straight from the government, them saying
Speaker 1: this is from Roswell or this is from Magenta like
Speaker 1: they need to say it and give it to us.
Speaker 1: It can't be like an I beam from Roswell that
Speaker 1: we know had inscriptions on it that we're similar to hieroglyphics.
Speaker 1: Can't be that, right, be something different and you see
Speaker 1: to be from the government to us. Here's some fucking
Speaker 1: physical evidence. Boom. We're not alone. End of story, right.
Speaker 1: Let some labs do some samples on it, show them
Speaker 1: all it's real. Move on, get the train moving. Whoever
Speaker 1: can do that will be in every history book ever
Speaker 1: written ever again, unless we were wiped out in some catastrophe,
Speaker 1: but it might even be written about in the aliens books.
Speaker 1: Now we're part of that history. We know that they're there,
Speaker 1: so you immortalize yourself. So someone's in the working in
Speaker 1: the black programs and fancies a stroll through YouTube all
Speaker 1: the time, you know, every once in a while, and
Speaker 1: checks out what UFO people are talking about, because you know,
Speaker 1: you working on a UFO and you really just want
Speaker 1: to get it off your chest. We're waiting, all right,
Speaker 1: thank you everyone, become an asset if you want early access.
Speaker 1: Uh my episode with You a PPD came out over
Speaker 1: the weekend with Mary and Robin Dave Rich. Uh they
Speaker 1: from Arizona. I will say this episodes fantastic. The video
Speaker 1: it was too big, too too big for one upload,
Speaker 1: so I fucked. I got to re upload it into
Speaker 1: two halves again, well into four halves, and then yeah,
Speaker 1: it's really weird. So I'll get working on that tomorrow.
Speaker 1: But people who are coming on are interesting, interesting people.
Speaker 1: John Borrows is one of them. These are the guests
Speaker 1: that are coming next. And if you like, if you
Speaker 1: want to become a member and get these early. Sometimes
Speaker 1: I upload them weeks in advance for people early in
Speaker 1: ad free access, and sometimes I let let the members
Speaker 1: watch me record so like you'll see the fuck ups
Speaker 1: and everything, or like the pee breaks and everything. I
Speaker 1: should say, not really fuck ups, but if you want
Speaker 1: to see it and it's raw form at like in
Speaker 1: like that kind of way, join the membership. It really
Speaker 1: helps you pay what you want and everyone gets the
Speaker 1: same benefits. Yeah, I'm working on sending out some stickers
Speaker 1: to people that are members as well, like show stickers,
Speaker 1: because I've been buying some die cut ones and they'll
Speaker 1: also be given those away just a random people throughout
Speaker 1: like the next couple of months, as well as some
Speaker 1: other things I've been buying, like doing that oh you
Speaker 1: can't see it anymore, the hats and stuff. I've been
Speaker 1: playing around with some of the designs and yeah, so
Speaker 1: I just want to give some of that stuff away.
Speaker 1: All right, Guys likes here subscribe. Let me know what
Speaker 1: you thought of Agent disclosure in the comments below. As
Speaker 1: Elvie's it was real fun and uh, the show would
Speaker 1: not exist without the viewers. You guys make everything worth it, truly,
Speaker 1: and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
Speaker 1: Whether you're Ski or debunker, if you're a part of
Speaker 1: the UFO community, you make it all worth it. We're
Speaker 1: all in this together. Over and out
Speaker 2: Hmm.
Apple Podcasts
Castbox
Castro
Goodpods
Moon FM
Overcast
Pocket Casts
Podbean
Podcast Addict
Podcast Republic
Spotify