#18 | UK Govt UFO Investigator EXPOSES the Dark Side of Disclosure

<v Speaker 1>Welcome back, everybody to another episode of Hard Trew's podcast.
<v Speaker 1>I'm your host Ashon Forbes. Today I have another very
<v Speaker 1>special guest, I have Nick Pope. Nick Pope is a
<v Speaker 1>UFO investigator who has worked with the British government the
<v Speaker 1>equivalent of the DoD, and researched the UFO phenomenon for
<v Speaker 1>many decades. So Nick, thank you very much for being
<v Speaker 1>on my show today.
<v Speaker 2>Thank you for having me.
<v Speaker 1>Can you quickly just go through and clarify your background
<v Speaker 1>for some of my viewers who might not be familiar
<v Speaker 1>with you. Was I right and that you've been kind
<v Speaker 1>of investigating this phenomenon for several decades and related to
<v Speaker 1>the British government.
<v Speaker 3>Yes, I actually was a civilian employee for the UK
<v Speaker 3>Ministry of Defense, which as you said, is the British
<v Speaker 3>equivalent of the DoD here in the United States. I
<v Speaker 3>had a twenty one year career with them. Actually, I
<v Speaker 3>did a lot of postings in that time, so I
<v Speaker 3>moved around a fair bit in terms of subject matter.
<v Speaker 3>My time officially looking at the UAPSU was nineteen ninety
<v Speaker 3>one through to nineteen ninety four, but subsequent to that,
<v Speaker 3>of course, I've kept up an interest in a private capacity,
<v Speaker 3>and I now comment on this subject quite a lot
<v Speaker 3>in the mainstream media, for example, But my government.
<v Speaker 2>What experience of it was ninety one to ninety four?
<v Speaker 4>And what did you think about the UFO phenomena before you.
<v Speaker 1>Did that versus after you started investigating? How toe how
<v Speaker 1>do your perception change or if it did well.
<v Speaker 3>I didn't really think about UFOs or UAP as we
<v Speaker 3>call them in government at all before I had that
<v Speaker 3>particular job. I obviously intellectually was aware of the UFO mystery,
<v Speaker 3>but frankly that was about it.
<v Speaker 2>I had no.
<v Speaker 3>Particular interest or belief in it, So I just approached
<v Speaker 3>it when I was asked to do this, I just
<v Speaker 3>approached it as I would approach any new posting in
<v Speaker 3>the Ministry of Defense. In other words, my aim was
<v Speaker 3>to do the job to the best of my ability
<v Speaker 3>and hopefully to get a promotion out of it, which
<v Speaker 3>I did in the end. But yeah, so I really
<v Speaker 3>knew very little about it, had no strong beliefs or
<v Speaker 3>opinions either way. And then afterwards I think it was
<v Speaker 3>something of an eye opener because I think I went
<v Speaker 3>in sort of thinking, well, UFOs, I don't know Steven
<v Speaker 3>Spielberg close encounters of the third.
<v Speaker 2>Kind, something like that.
<v Speaker 3>I came out with this, I guess knowledge that Wait
<v Speaker 3>a minute, you know, it's not all just sci fi
<v Speaker 3>or crazy conspiracy talk. There's a sort of significant, statistically
<v Speaker 3>significant proportion of these things over the years, not just
<v Speaker 3>in the UK, but in the US, in many countries
<v Speaker 3>that have had a formally constituted program. So look at this,
<v Speaker 3>A statistically significant proportion of these things, you know, did
<v Speaker 3>suggest something tangible, something more than just misidentifications, hoaxes or delusions,
<v Speaker 3>and something where we consistently had speeds, maneuvers and accelerations
<v Speaker 3>that made i don't know, the cutting edge of our
<v Speaker 3>aerospace tech looked like kids toys and made even us
<v Speaker 3>fairly skeptical, conservative minded folks at the Ministry Defense a
<v Speaker 3>little bit perturbed about all this.
<v Speaker 1>Is that why they had you investigating it is that
<v Speaker 1>we knew something was going on, but we had to
<v Speaker 1>figure out what's its origin, what's the nature of it,
<v Speaker 1>what's the physics and science of it. Was that kind
<v Speaker 1>of what you were tasked with, or was it more
<v Speaker 1>in terms of like what the dangers might be to
<v Speaker 1>like civilian aircraft and stuff like that or a combination
<v Speaker 1>of both.
<v Speaker 3>Yes, it was a little bit of both actually, and
<v Speaker 3>I should say I was not the first person to
<v Speaker 3>have this job by a long chalk. I mean, we
<v Speaker 3>had sightings that actually went back to the Second World War,
<v Speaker 3>but in terms of when we had actually set up
<v Speaker 3>a formal program to look at this, that was nineteen
<v Speaker 3>fifty three. So obviously many different people had done that
<v Speaker 3>job over the years. Sometimes the military had the lead,
<v Speaker 3>sometimes civilian employees like myself had the lead. It didn't
<v Speaker 3>really matter where the work was embedded. But what we
<v Speaker 3>did was essentially two things. Firstly, we tried to understand
<v Speaker 3>the phenomenon itself holistically, you know, what are we dealing
<v Speaker 3>with here? And yes, part of that is obviously trying
<v Speaker 3>to do a threat assessment see if there is evidence
<v Speaker 3>of any threat, and then you know, what, if anything,
<v Speaker 3>can we.
<v Speaker 2>Do about it?
<v Speaker 3>The other side of it, in many sense, I guess
<v Speaker 3>the day to day running of it was more about
<v Speaker 3>the individual investigations. We got two or three hundred reports
<v Speaker 3>each year, and although we did some classified work, we
<v Speaker 3>were actually unlike for example, a TIP or SAM, we
<v Speaker 3>were actually a public facing program, so we had more
<v Speaker 3>in common with the old Project Blue Book than perhaps
<v Speaker 3>we did with the more modern programs, and so we weren't.
<v Speaker 3>Our existence was not a secret. Members of the public
<v Speaker 3>would contact us with their sightings, and although obviously we
<v Speaker 3>had our own pilots and radar operators seeing things and
<v Speaker 3>tracking things, which was very interesting, I would say ninety
<v Speaker 3>percent plus of the cases we had came from the public.
<v Speaker 2>So a lot of what I was doing was to.
<v Speaker 3>Try and get answers on those cases, trying to trying
<v Speaker 3>to correlate it with things we either knew about or
<v Speaker 3>could find out about, whether they were military aircraft exercises
<v Speaker 3>or some sort of astronomical phenomenon or meteorological phenomenon.
<v Speaker 1>So what's your opinion, And you know, just to keep
<v Speaker 1>to put a disclaimer on this and not going to
<v Speaker 1>like hopefully people won't hold you.
<v Speaker 4>Those people's opinions can change.
<v Speaker 1>But right now, where would you lean in terms of
<v Speaker 1>what you've seen and learn in terms of the origin
<v Speaker 1>of these rare exceptions where there's something anomalois going on.
<v Speaker 1>Do you think that it's advanced technology that we have
<v Speaker 1>or do you think it's alien in nature?
<v Speaker 4>Do you do you think it's something more exotic than that.
<v Speaker 3>It could be all of the above, it could be
<v Speaker 3>none of the above. Well, I say none of the above. No,
<v Speaker 3>let me take that back, because clearly a proportion of
<v Speaker 3>sightings consistently over the years have been attributable to people
<v Speaker 3>seeing and misidentifying secret prototype aircraft, missiles and drones. So
<v Speaker 3>that is certainly one explanation. And of course, as I say,
<v Speaker 3>most of these things turn out, of course to be misidentifications.
<v Speaker 3>But if you just ring fencing the ones where we've
<v Speaker 3>thrown out the conventional explanations because they just don't marry
<v Speaker 3>up with the facts, then yeah, some of those are
<v Speaker 3>prototype devices, but they're hours and when I say hours,
<v Speaker 3>I mean terrestrial. They're either British, American or they might
<v Speaker 3>be operated by an adversary, of course, and we've had
<v Speaker 3>a big debate about this in the last few years.
<v Speaker 3>We had the Chinese spy balloon. Of course, we've had
<v Speaker 3>the recent drone incursions, and although I've seen some statements
<v Speaker 3>which are quite dismissive of the New Jersey drones, there
<v Speaker 3>is certainly, or what I think it's still current, a
<v Speaker 3>US government assessment that some of the drone incursions in
<v Speaker 3>the UK and Germany were probably attributable to an adversary,
<v Speaker 3>and in that case it's almost certainly Russia. And I
<v Speaker 3>say that because, of course the drone activity. You know,
<v Speaker 3>you just look at the date the drone activity ramped
<v Speaker 3>up almost literally the same week that the UK authorized
<v Speaker 3>the use of long long range munitions like storm Shadow,
<v Speaker 3>not just against battlefield targets in Ukraine, but against targets
<v Speaker 3>in in Russia, mainly in the.
<v Speaker 4>Yeah.
<v Speaker 1>Do you think then that we and maybe Russia China
<v Speaker 1>are like working on some advanced technology that we're misrepresenting
<v Speaker 1>as UFOs, or that maybe there was technology that we
<v Speaker 1>reverse engineered that we've got flying around out there that
<v Speaker 1>people are identifying, because it doesn't seem like that drone
<v Speaker 1>situation was like aliens, whatever it was. And I wouldn't
<v Speaker 1>be surprised to find that there was adversarial technology floating
<v Speaker 1>around we're not seeing like, no one's really coming out
<v Speaker 1>and taking credit for it. And there is this long
<v Speaker 1>history of supposed reverse engineering in the UFO phenomenon.
<v Speaker 4>So what's your take on all that.
<v Speaker 3>Well, I think it's a given that at any particular
<v Speaker 3>point in time, there is aerospace tech out there that
<v Speaker 3>is maybe ten, fifteen, possibly twenty years ahead of anything
<v Speaker 3>that's publicly acknowledged or declared, anything that you're likely to
<v Speaker 3>see on the evening news or flying at any of
<v Speaker 3>the big air shows around the world. I think that's
<v Speaker 3>a given. Whether that is our own technology or whether
<v Speaker 3>some of it is. I mean, clearly some of it
<v Speaker 3>is our own tech. There's no getting away from the
<v Speaker 3>fact that we're pretty smart, and we're pretty good at
<v Speaker 3>figuring things out, and we've got some scientific and engineering
<v Speaker 3>genie who who can do a lot of stuff. Whether
<v Speaker 3>any of this is wholly or partly derived from anything
<v Speaker 3>back engineered, reverse engineered from recovered alien technology, I don't know.
<v Speaker 3>I don't rule it out, and certainly myself and other
<v Speaker 3>colleagues at the Ministry of Defense even did not rule
<v Speaker 3>out the extraterrestrial hypothesis still don't equally, of course, we
<v Speaker 3>hear a lot of speculation about other potentially exotic, non
<v Speaker 3>terrestrial but not necessarily alien explanations for this, and recently,
<v Speaker 3>for example, we've had people like David Grush pivot from
<v Speaker 3>terms like extraterrestrial to nahine on human intelligence, which which
<v Speaker 3>is a kind of I guess more open term that
<v Speaker 3>doesn't close off other possibilities such as, for example, something
<v Speaker 3>from other dimensions or even and we've seen a ramping
<v Speaker 3>up of the whole religious narrative recently which is very interesting,
<v Speaker 3>even something you know that we would characterize us as
<v Speaker 3>God's devils, angels or demons.
<v Speaker 1>Well, so here's the problem I have with this is
<v Speaker 1>that I agree the military is more advanced, but I
<v Speaker 1>think the level of technology that we would be dealing
<v Speaker 1>with here related to NHI would be something that's more
<v Speaker 1>advanced than ten or twenty years, you know, being ten
<v Speaker 1>or twenty years more advanced on making rockets still going
<v Speaker 1>to be a rocket. We're looking at something that's just
<v Speaker 1>from conventional, mainstream academic perspective of physics is defining the
<v Speaker 1>laws of physics. How can a UFO how can something
<v Speaker 1>hover like this in place, let alone move around like
<v Speaker 1>this with no inertia and theoretically move off at extremely
<v Speaker 1>high velocities that would seem impossible for any conventional material
<v Speaker 1>to do that. And I think that those like you know,
<v Speaker 1>they call them the five observables in the UFO field,
<v Speaker 1>we're seeing stuff like that that seems like that's not
<v Speaker 1>ten or twenty years more advanced. So this is the
<v Speaker 1>part where I'm pushing back and saying, well, it should
<v Speaker 1>be pretty obvious whether or not it's something that's terrestrial
<v Speaker 1>technological advancement in nature, you know, in explanation, versus like, Okay,
<v Speaker 1>this is just beyond like what you know, well way
<v Speaker 1>beyond what anything in.
<v Speaker 4>The public is aware of. So I guess I'm saying, like, you.
<v Speaker 1>Know, have we figured that level of that leap of
<v Speaker 1>technology out secretly and we're covering that up, or you know,
<v Speaker 1>is that possible or does it require some extraterrestrial explanation
<v Speaker 1>or you know, maybe not necessarily like you said NHI.
<v Speaker 1>There's a lot of different explanations of NHI, which I
<v Speaker 1>think can mean stuff too, like ancient civilizations. I guess
<v Speaker 1>what I'm trying to get at is like, do we
<v Speaker 1>have does that level of technology that's beyond what we
<v Speaker 1>currently accept and understand right now from the mainstream perspective,
<v Speaker 1>and who has it?
<v Speaker 3>The short answer is, I don't know, because I wasn't
<v Speaker 3>read into or onto any of those programs. If this
<v Speaker 3>technology exists, I'm convinced that it's it's on a very
<v Speaker 3>close hold somewhere in the United States and notwithstanding the
<v Speaker 3>special relationship between the UK and the US. I wasn't
<v Speaker 3>cleared for that or read onto those programs. As I say,
<v Speaker 3>I have heard from people who I know, you know,
<v Speaker 3>they are who they say they are, they did what
<v Speaker 3>they said they did. I've heard that these these technologies exist,
<v Speaker 3>but I've not been able to verify that independently. But
<v Speaker 3>I agree on the point I think it might be
<v Speaker 3>impossible for us to figure out if we have this technology,
<v Speaker 3>I go back actually your point ten or fifteen years,
<v Speaker 3>you could understand that, but anything more it becomes almost impossible.
<v Speaker 3>And I've heard various people use the analogy of if
<v Speaker 3>you could send a smartphone I don't know, ten, fifteen,
<v Speaker 3>twenty years back in time and it ended up at
<v Speaker 3>the Apple building, they would kind of be gushing over it,
<v Speaker 3>but they would know what it was and they'd probably
<v Speaker 3>be able to figure it out. But if you sent
<v Speaker 3>it back fifty years, one hundred years, probably not. And
<v Speaker 3>if you send it back ten thousand years, it would
<v Speaker 3>be a flat, shiny magic rock. So if we have
<v Speaker 3>this tag unless I mean I think it's again in
<v Speaker 3>a universe nearly fourteen billion years old, there might be
<v Speaker 3>civilizations a billion years ahead of us, and we wouldn't
<v Speaker 3>be able to figure that out. Might you know, using
<v Speaker 3>that smartphone analogy, we might be able to figure out
<v Speaker 3>tech that was I don't know, fifty years ahead, but
<v Speaker 3>anything else, and I think it begins to break down
<v Speaker 3>in terms of you know, it becomes more like trying
<v Speaker 3>to explain quantum physics to a chimpanzee with us being
<v Speaker 3>the chimpanzees. I mean, in other words, impossible. And then
<v Speaker 3>I would say, what, what do people think statistically the
<v Speaker 3>chances are if we interact with another civilization or civilizations
<v Speaker 3>in a fourteen billion year old universe, that we would
<v Speaker 3>just happen to stumble across one only fifty years or
<v Speaker 3>less more advanced than us. I would think that was
<v Speaker 3>statistically very unlikely. Therefore, even if we had the tech,
<v Speaker 3>I'm not sure we could figure it out.
<v Speaker 1>It's interesting and it's funny. Maybe you that I actually
<v Speaker 1>got that original thought that that it's a really great
<v Speaker 1>point in terms of thinking, why are we thinking that
<v Speaker 1>like we're the most advanced civilization on the block. Maybe
<v Speaker 1>civilization's way more advanced than we are, and way older
<v Speaker 1>and than we are. Now this is one kind of
<v Speaker 1>twist that I've put on it. Just theory that I've
<v Speaker 1>thrown out there is that maybe it's not like. The
<v Speaker 1>thing that I disagree with the most when anyone brings
<v Speaker 1>up is this idea that we can't understand some property
<v Speaker 1>of the universe, like quantum mechanics.
<v Speaker 4>You bring it up. You can't explain quantum mechanics to
<v Speaker 4>a chimp.
<v Speaker 1>But I would say, in theory, if I were to
<v Speaker 1>go back in time to cavemen times, you know, given
<v Speaker 1>enough time, I could explain things like quantum mechanics, I
<v Speaker 1>could get them caught up to speed. Maybe it would
<v Speaker 1>take generations, but it could happen, I would argue. And
<v Speaker 1>that's my thing about physics is that there is no
<v Speaker 1>laws of physics that we can understand. I think we
<v Speaker 1>get too stuck in that our view of the universe
<v Speaker 1>is based on what the mainstream academic view of physics is,
<v Speaker 1>like general reale relativity, et cetera, et cetera. But whatever
<v Speaker 1>these UFOs are doing that are flying around, they challenge
<v Speaker 1>that because our general view of relativity would say, wait,
<v Speaker 1>where's the where's the fuel for this thing? There's no
<v Speaker 1>fuel here, right, But that doesn't mean it's something beyond
<v Speaker 1>our comprehension. I mean, we live in the same reality
<v Speaker 1>as the aliens live in, so I would say that
<v Speaker 1>we should be able to figure out. Now Here's my
<v Speaker 1>point is that what if it's not a situation where
<v Speaker 1>it's this like linear progression where you have to be
<v Speaker 1>this advanced understand this level of technology, where it's more
<v Speaker 1>of just like hurdles. Once you jump over the hurdle
<v Speaker 1>and you figure out fire, now you get to where
<v Speaker 1>we're at, where you can shoot rockets up into the sky.
<v Speaker 1>But let's say there's another hurdle where the aliens or
<v Speaker 1>the other non human intelligence civilizations are more advanced. So
<v Speaker 1>they've reached this hurdle, this other this technology breakthrough, and
<v Speaker 1>any civilization that reaches that, now you've reached warp drives, wormholes,
<v Speaker 1>free energy, et cetera. What if there was a situation
<v Speaker 1>like that, like, how would that change the perspective of
<v Speaker 1>the universell that make it look more like there's a
<v Speaker 1>galactic federation and everybody achieves this level like.
<v Speaker 4>In Star Trek or something like that.
<v Speaker 1>Oh, you reach the warp drive, Welcome to the Galactic
<v Speaker 1>Federation or we'll go ahead.
<v Speaker 3>What are your thoughts Yeah, Actually, that is a very
<v Speaker 3>interesting question which I have thought of. Is there a
<v Speaker 3>sort of threshold that a civilization has to cross before
<v Speaker 3>it gets that invitation to join the federation or whatever
<v Speaker 3>it is, And if it's not a federation, it's probably
<v Speaker 3>something like it, because I think, you know, I'm always
<v Speaker 3>wary of taking an anthropocentric.
<v Speaker 2>View yet of course it's.
<v Speaker 3>The only view we can have on this, but I
<v Speaker 3>think it is one of the few good assumptions we
<v Speaker 3>can make that if there are other civilizations out there,
<v Speaker 3>particularly more advanced than us, that they would come together
<v Speaker 3>in some sort of forum to discuss differences, to discuss
<v Speaker 3>strategies for civilizations that are below that threshold, to prevent
<v Speaker 3>conflict between advanced civilizations, all all that sort of thing.
<v Speaker 3>So if it's I mean, if it's not called the federation,
<v Speaker 3>there's probably something very much like it. And it does
<v Speaker 3>pose the question what.
<v Speaker 2>Gets you in?
<v Speaker 3>And then that's why I think Gene Roddenberry and that
<v Speaker 3>whole Star Trek universe is very very fascinating. You know,
<v Speaker 3>some sort of development of some sort of faster than
<v Speaker 3>light propulsion system or a workaround to the apparent barrier
<v Speaker 3>of light speed, you know, whatever it is, whether it's
<v Speaker 3>a propulsion system or whether it's it's sort of warp
<v Speaker 3>drive wormholes, whatever, maybe that is. It wouldn't it be
<v Speaker 3>amazing if Star Trek turned out to be correct on that.
<v Speaker 3>But maybe it's something else. Maybe it's something to do
<v Speaker 3>with our sort of moral development. Maybe maybe you know,
<v Speaker 3>you could imagine that a sort of dominant belief system
<v Speaker 3>has emerged in the universe just by a sort of
<v Speaker 3>process of of you know, lots of things coming together,
<v Speaker 3>and eventually a dominant narrative will will maybe emerge or
<v Speaker 3>dominant civilization will will be the top dog and will
<v Speaker 3>impose its kind of will top down. But you know
<v Speaker 3>that that dominant narrative might be moral, it might be spiritual,
<v Speaker 3>might be religious, and you know, it might be something
<v Speaker 3>maybe something unattainable for us at present. And I take
<v Speaker 3>your point about if you went back in time, you know,
<v Speaker 3>to Stone age times, because you're talking about you're still
<v Speaker 3>talking about anatomically model modern humans, and maybe given enough
<v Speaker 3>time you could explain quantum physics. But if you went
<v Speaker 3>back five to say million years ago, you know, to
<v Speaker 3>the of the chimp human split, I'm not sure, then
<v Speaker 3>you could and then the question becomes, are we at
<v Speaker 3>the level of the chimps and is there something more advanced,
<v Speaker 3>which there very well might be.
<v Speaker 2>That does mean we can't.
<v Speaker 3>I mean again, it depends is there an upper limit
<v Speaker 3>on human intelligence?
<v Speaker 2>And I've heard various people talk, for example.
<v Speaker 3>About brain size and the pelvic gap being being one
<v Speaker 3>factor there. But again, random mutation, natural selection, you know,
<v Speaker 3>who knows and then throw into the mix AI and
<v Speaker 3>machine intelligence.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, so that's where you start to get to some
<v Speaker 1>of the dark aspects of it, I think is really
<v Speaker 1>where a lot of people have approached that everybody a lot.
<v Speaker 1>I think the mainstream view is that this view that
<v Speaker 1>the aliens are gonna come and help us and save
<v Speaker 1>us and lift us up or something like that. But
<v Speaker 1>when the reason why, I think David Grush changed to
<v Speaker 1>non human intelligence and why we use as because the
<v Speaker 1>options are widespread, including things like AI, future humans, ultraterrestrials, cryptids, demons, angels,
<v Speaker 1>ian huge list of things. And then you look at
<v Speaker 1>all this whole phenomenon in general and you kind of wonder, like,
<v Speaker 1>if there is this threshold of what gets you in,
<v Speaker 1>could explain this level of control suppression?
<v Speaker 4>There seems to be over this topic. We're normally, you.
<v Speaker 1>Know, if it was just a situation where alien where
<v Speaker 1>there's aliens out there, like you know, first of all,
<v Speaker 1>I don't see how that would be a national security issue,
<v Speaker 1>and second of all, if they are a threat, I
<v Speaker 1>would imagine they would want to be transparent about that information.
<v Speaker 1>But instead there's this obfuscation and there's this weird question
<v Speaker 1>about the technology related to it as well. And I
<v Speaker 1>think that another thing to kind of support that idea
<v Speaker 1>that maybe there's this threshold is what you just brought up.
<v Speaker 1>And I wanted to ask you if you've heard my
<v Speaker 1>interview with Jason George Johnny. I don't know if you
<v Speaker 1>know who he is, but he's a very interesting guy
<v Speaker 1>that's looked into the UFO and past civilizations and stuff
<v Speaker 1>like that. And also Peter Thiel when he was on
<v Speaker 1>Joe Rogan. Both have mentioned this idea that what if
<v Speaker 1>there's this zero point energy technology or whatever it takes
<v Speaker 1>to make a wormhole or warp drive, but it's so
<v Speaker 1>powerful that your whole society has to be built kind
<v Speaker 1>of around making sure no one misuses this technology because
<v Speaker 1>it's so dangerous. And that was kind of what you
<v Speaker 1>were talking about the moral system. I was just wondering,
<v Speaker 1>have you heard that at all, because that's a pretty
<v Speaker 1>dark thing to think about if it's true.
<v Speaker 3>Yes, I've given a lot of thought to this recently
<v Speaker 3>and absolutely again being wary of anthropotentrism. But again it's
<v Speaker 3>one of the very very few good assumptions that I
<v Speaker 3>think we can make. Is that, for example, if let's
<v Speaker 3>just suppose, for the purposes of this, we are talking
<v Speaker 3>about extraterrestrial visitation, almost any conceivable means of viable interstellar
<v Speaker 3>travel is I think going to involve something that generates
<v Speaker 3>vast quantities of energy. And almost and I think this
<v Speaker 3>is where you were coming from with this, almost anything
<v Speaker 3>that generates vast quantities of energy can be weaponized, or
<v Speaker 3>even if it's not a deliberate weaponization, could through misused, misunderstanding, accident, whatever,
<v Speaker 3>have existential you know, consequences if something were to go wrong.
<v Speaker 3>So I came into this sort of thinking, you know, disclosure,
<v Speaker 3>if it's all true, if we've got smoking guns hidden
<v Speaker 3>away somewhere, there shouldn't be any problem, sort of saying,
<v Speaker 3>you know, we are not alone, because that's not classified
<v Speaker 3>by any definition that I have ever operated under when
<v Speaker 3>it comes to classified information. And I've I've had extremely
<v Speaker 3>high security clearances, and you know, the definitions are fairly
<v Speaker 3>well understood. It's it's information, the release of which could
<v Speaker 3>have catastrophic consequences for the defense of the United States.
<v Speaker 3>I mean, that's that's pretty much the sort of definition
<v Speaker 3>that that top secret would have.
<v Speaker 1>So that so let me if I'm just jumping out
<v Speaker 1>that because you just made a really really great point,
<v Speaker 1>which is it The argument you just made there is
<v Speaker 1>that we're not alone would never count as something that's
<v Speaker 1>like a national security threat under classification mechanism.
<v Speaker 4>So you know, because a lot.
<v Speaker 1>Of people try to spin this argument that well, the
<v Speaker 1>national security thing is this alien threat or whatever. But again,
<v Speaker 1>this idea that we're not alone, and if it was
<v Speaker 1>all of these people that have clearances or had clearances
<v Speaker 1>like lou al Zando who are going out there, they
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't be allowed to say it. And that's the one
<v Speaker 1>thing they are saying is that hey, they're aliens, were
<v Speaker 1>not alone.
<v Speaker 4>That's out there. So what is the national security danger
<v Speaker 4>and risk?
<v Speaker 1>And I don't want to put you in any trouble here,
<v Speaker 1>but so I'll go ahead and tell you what I
<v Speaker 1>think it is, and then I'll let you opine. I
<v Speaker 1>think the answer is the energy source. What you just
<v Speaker 1>said was a great point.
<v Speaker 4>You're right.
<v Speaker 1>It takes a huge amount of energy to make a
<v Speaker 1>wormhole or a warp drive if you look at conventional physics.
<v Speaker 1>That's one of the hang ups. The other hang up
<v Speaker 1>is that it also requires negative energy, and this requires
<v Speaker 1>a new understanding of the view of our universe in
<v Speaker 1>order to understand how negative energy could be possible. So
<v Speaker 1>it speaks to both of your points. Are you're over
<v Speaker 1>here on my screen. It speaks to both of your
<v Speaker 1>points about maybe we have to be like more enlightened
<v Speaker 1>to achiet to understand the universe. And it also speaks
<v Speaker 1>to this level of like, if you can produce this,
<v Speaker 1>you make a huge amount of energy, huge amount, and
<v Speaker 1>that can be turned into a weapon, which it makes
<v Speaker 1>it really dark. This is the thing that if I
<v Speaker 1>think what's national security, well you just said it. It's
<v Speaker 1>this huge amount of energy and the ability to weaponize it.
<v Speaker 1>And energy is used to control our society, and weapons
<v Speaker 1>are used to destroy people and other people and maintain power.
<v Speaker 1>So is that what they're hiding. Are they hiding an
<v Speaker 1>energy source from us that nobody knows about.
<v Speaker 2>That could be part of it.
<v Speaker 3>But let me let me sort of walk you through
<v Speaker 3>the evolution of my thinking on this and see what
<v Speaker 3>you think, because I started off from a position of
<v Speaker 3>exactly that and saying that you would not want to
<v Speaker 3>disclose anything to do with the tech because that tech
<v Speaker 3>could be weaponized or just through inadvertent misuse, could could rip.
<v Speaker 2>Apart the universe, you know. But then I sort of
<v Speaker 2>thought again, and I thought, well, wait a.
<v Speaker 3>Minute, in my handling of classified information on a whole
<v Speaker 3>range of different subjects, it's perfectly possible to kind of
<v Speaker 3>wall off a part of it, you ring fence something.
<v Speaker 3>So you should be able to say, you know, let's
<v Speaker 3>do the old cliche about how it might be announced.
<v Speaker 3>The President should be able to say, my fellow Americans,
<v Speaker 3>people of the world, we're not alone, because there's nothing
<v Speaker 3>classified about that under any definition that I know. The
<v Speaker 3>President could then go on to say, but obviously elements
<v Speaker 3>of the technology are incredibly dangerous, and we're not going
<v Speaker 3>to be saying anything about that side of things. So
<v Speaker 3>why hasn't that happened? And this has taken me to
<v Speaker 3>my sort of current position on this. The current position
<v Speaker 3>is that there must be something in and of itself
<v Speaker 3>about the extraterrestrial presence or the NHI presence. If that's
<v Speaker 3>what we're dealing with, that is very very dark side
<v Speaker 3>because if it was easy to disclose, and if people
<v Speaker 3>have known about this since forty seven Roswell, if that's
<v Speaker 3>a start point, then if it was easy, someone would
<v Speaker 3>have done it by now. So one of the again,
<v Speaker 3>what are the few assumptions we can make, is that
<v Speaker 3>it's not easy. If something takes you eighty years and
<v Speaker 3>you still haven't done it. Though some people say we're
<v Speaker 3>chipping away at it, it must be very hard. Why
<v Speaker 3>is it very hard? I think it goes beyond the tech.
<v Speaker 3>The tech is clearly part of it. It's a truism
<v Speaker 3>what we're discussing. I don't think anyone could dispute that
<v Speaker 3>high energy equals weaponization.
<v Speaker 2>That's a given. But what else is it about this?
<v Speaker 3>And that's why I have recently become attracted to the
<v Speaker 3>idea that there must be something inherently dark side about,
<v Speaker 3>something about part of this, something that you can't wall off,
<v Speaker 3>something that's so inextricably linked with it that it is
<v Speaker 3>the story so I know that's a little bit.
<v Speaker 1>No. I think I'm with you all right right up
<v Speaker 1>until the end. And this is where I want to
<v Speaker 1>This is actually great because this is where we can
<v Speaker 1>kind of push the conversation and push the dialogue and
<v Speaker 1>have back and forth about it. Is because I think
<v Speaker 1>that right up until the point where you say, okay, well,
<v Speaker 1>you know, why have they've done it, there must be
<v Speaker 1>a reason why they haven't just come out and said,
<v Speaker 1>here's the situation. We're going to hold back this technology.
<v Speaker 1>But here you go, here's you know, the aliens or
<v Speaker 1>the past civilization or the future humans.
<v Speaker 4>That told us about this second whatever it is.
<v Speaker 1>I think the part the answer there is but if
<v Speaker 1>you were to do that, everyone's going to go, wait, no,
<v Speaker 1>you have to give us a technology. What is the
<v Speaker 1>technology that you're hiding there?
<v Speaker 4>We need to know?
<v Speaker 1>And then the reason why they can't you would say, okay, well,
<v Speaker 1>just give us the good stuff, but hold back the
<v Speaker 1>dangerous stuff. That's the problem. I think that that's a
<v Speaker 1>Pandora's box where the moment you crack it open. Remember
<v Speaker 1>what I said earlier was that it's this idea that
<v Speaker 1>we could even have a UFO flow it requires this
<v Speaker 1>perception change of the universe. So how the universe works,
<v Speaker 1>we have to see the universe is not empty but
<v Speaker 1>full of energy all around us, because if it is,
<v Speaker 1>then we have no problem understanding how a UFO could fly,
<v Speaker 1>how you could achieve this huge amount of energy. That's
<v Speaker 1>what they can't let happen. In my opinion, and now
<v Speaker 1>this is me kind of going to my conspiracy angle,
<v Speaker 1>is that if we were to be enlightened enough to
<v Speaker 1>understand that, then we our whole universe will open up,
<v Speaker 1>Our perspective of the.
<v Speaker 4>Universe will open up.
<v Speaker 1>We might even understand that things like free energy could
<v Speaker 1>then become possible.
<v Speaker 4>And now what I would say is what's the dark?
<v Speaker 1>Because I agree there must be a dark reason why
<v Speaker 1>they're not telling us. So here's my twist on that
<v Speaker 1>they've figured this technology out potentially for many decades, they
<v Speaker 1>being a covert elite group of people that is a
<v Speaker 1>combination of people that might be politicians or heads of
<v Speaker 1>very powerful large corporations, energy companies, defense contractors, et cetera.
<v Speaker 1>And they've just decided nobody really else should learn about
<v Speaker 1>it or know about it. And the reason why the
<v Speaker 1>Department of Energy then is involved in the UFO phenomenon
<v Speaker 1>is because they don't want anybody to know about this
<v Speaker 1>huge Pandora's box. And yes, it could lead to things
<v Speaker 1>like free energy and warp drives and wormholes, but it
<v Speaker 1>could also lead to, like you pointed out correctly, the
<v Speaker 1>annihilation of our reality of a black hole that wipes
<v Speaker 1>away our solar system, not just our planet. And if
<v Speaker 1>you look it from that perspective to say, what would
<v Speaker 1>you do if you're the United States government to maintain
<v Speaker 1>military supremacy over this level of technology, which you could
<v Speaker 1>argue is not just control over the oceans or the sky.
<v Speaker 4>But space time itself.
<v Speaker 1>You would probably do some really dark things to maintain
<v Speaker 1>supremacy over that. Like some people have said, well JFK
<v Speaker 1>maybe was assassinated because he knew.
<v Speaker 4>About UFO stuff. But what if you've.
<v Speaker 1>Conducted illegal black operations against other countries to ensure that
<v Speaker 1>they don't get this UFO technology or whatever it is,
<v Speaker 1>and you've figured it out, you would definitely not want
<v Speaker 1>to tell people about it, because revealing the truth then
<v Speaker 1>about the UFOs is also revealing the truth of what
<v Speaker 1>you've done to use that technology for illegal things. Do
<v Speaker 1>you think that that's too far out there, or do
<v Speaker 1>you think that there could be an element of truth
<v Speaker 1>to that.
<v Speaker 2>I think they could be an element of truth.
<v Speaker 3>And I think it gets to a really interesting question
<v Speaker 3>that I haven't heard anyone articulate in quite this sense,
<v Speaker 3>but I'll articulate it now, and maybe they have. If
<v Speaker 3>somebody has, than my apologies to them. I think it
<v Speaker 3>might seem to the public like there's a very fine
<v Speaker 3>line between this, but I would argue that there isn't,
<v Speaker 3>because I would say, you know, the question is this,
<v Speaker 3>if there is this program or programs, are they literally
<v Speaker 3>illegal programs or are they just unacknowledged special access programs
<v Speaker 3>which are on such a limited hold that it's either
<v Speaker 3>the so called Gang of eight or even withheld from
<v Speaker 3>the Gang of Eight and held on a sort of
<v Speaker 3>special presidential directive. And people might say, well, there's not
<v Speaker 3>much difference in what it would look like.
<v Speaker 2>That may be true. It would still be.
<v Speaker 3>I guess, managed by a very small select group, but
<v Speaker 3>there's a huge difference in terms of where it would
<v Speaker 3>then sit constitutionally, because it is either legal or.
<v Speaker 2>It's not legal.
<v Speaker 3>Now you could say, well, even that, how could you
<v Speaker 3>really say until it was tested in court. But I think,
<v Speaker 3>you know, there are precedents for presidential directives on certain
<v Speaker 3>matters where something can even be withheld from the Gang
<v Speaker 3>of Eight, And now I think to withhold something from
<v Speaker 3>the Gang of Eight or their predecessors, because of course
<v Speaker 3>that's not something that dates back to nineteen forty seven.
<v Speaker 3>To have something that would be on that limited a
<v Speaker 3>hold for decades would be very, very difficult. So let's
<v Speaker 3>suppose it's Gang of Eight level and historical equivalent further
<v Speaker 3>back in time. You know, that wouldn't make it an
<v Speaker 3>illegal program, but.
<v Speaker 2>I think it is.
<v Speaker 3>You know, it might sound like semantics to people, but
<v Speaker 3>it's actually a very important question because because if it
<v Speaker 3>is a legal program, then those those controls can be challenged,
<v Speaker 3>and a new administration coming in, particularly one which is
<v Speaker 3>moving very quickly and radically like the administration now, might
<v Speaker 3>just push back on that. But if this is an
<v Speaker 3>literally an illegal program, well the point is that even
<v Speaker 3>people within government who you would think would be running
<v Speaker 3>it might not even be aware of it.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, And I just for the audience who's not familiar
<v Speaker 1>with the Gang of Eight references, like I researched, like
<v Speaker 1>basically anybody in office who might know about UFO stuff
<v Speaker 1>to have a general background on it. And so the
<v Speaker 1>gang of it would be like the Senate Intelligence Committee,
<v Speaker 1>the people that might be briefed on the existence of
<v Speaker 1>you know, like advanced technologies, they have to know for
<v Speaker 1>you know, their role in that committee. Also, just in
<v Speaker 1>terms of like the historical suppression I found, you know,
<v Speaker 1>the Atomic Secrecy Act, it could be possible that you know,
<v Speaker 1>just like with the atomic bomb, I don't think anybody
<v Speaker 1>would believe, I'm looking for my coin here that the
<v Speaker 1>atomic bomb existed unless we had set it off. And
<v Speaker 1>what that taught us was that like even in the
<v Speaker 1>mass of this tiny coin, there's a huge amount of energy.
<v Speaker 1>Like that's the concept that that taught us that we
<v Speaker 1>kind of our concept of the universe change. But what if,
<v Speaker 1>like the atomic atomic bomb was like one side of
<v Speaker 1>this coin and they figured out another side and the
<v Speaker 1>other side of that coin is like they don't need
<v Speaker 1>the coin at all, that just like the empty space
<v Speaker 1>in this region has enough energy that they can create
<v Speaker 1>a bomb if they wanted, and they just decided never
<v Speaker 1>to tell anybody that they could have kept it secret
<v Speaker 1>under the Atomic Secrecy Act, and therefore anything related to
<v Speaker 1>it could have been kept secret, and then the Invention
<v Speaker 1>Secrecy Act in combination. These are in the early fifties,
<v Speaker 1>These could be used in combination to keep it secret.
<v Speaker 1>And then to go to your point of the unacknowledged programs,
<v Speaker 1>that was a that's a great point in my opinion,
<v Speaker 1>because there are all these unacknowledged programs that are out there,
<v Speaker 1>but they're not being directly managed by the government, even
<v Speaker 1>the Department of Energy, all the labs, they're all managed
<v Speaker 1>by a third party company and it's a nonprofit government
<v Speaker 1>entity or something a non government entity or something like this,
<v Speaker 1>so they can shield all this information from foyer requests,
<v Speaker 1>from any type of like oversight and stuff like that
<v Speaker 1>as well. So you look at all this and I go, well,
<v Speaker 1>this is exactly set up to like have figured this
<v Speaker 1>technology out, worked on it, suppressed it. And then the
<v Speaker 1>last thing, and this is where I would ask you
<v Speaker 1>a question, is I found out something called bigot lists.
<v Speaker 4>Which is basically lists of people who.
<v Speaker 1>Are read in on these acknowledged un knowledged programs, and
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't even have military people on them. Apparently a
<v Speaker 1>lot of times like that, like generals aren't read in
<v Speaker 1>Navy like admirals aren't read in. It wouldn't surprised me
<v Speaker 1>to your point, to find out that the president's not
<v Speaker 1>read in on many different programs that are out there.
<v Speaker 4>But they would maybe get read in on like a
<v Speaker 4>need to know basis.
<v Speaker 1>So if I look at all this and I go,
<v Speaker 1>oh boy, okay, well, it certainly seems possible that there
<v Speaker 1>could be a narrative where, you know, aliens might be real,
<v Speaker 1>but they're also using aliens to blame aliens for this
<v Speaker 1>crazy technology that we've figured out and these secret programs,
<v Speaker 1>and only a select number of people really know the truth,
<v Speaker 1>so it makes it really hard to get even if
<v Speaker 1>anyone wanted to get the truth out, to get it
<v Speaker 1>out there, and then the alien thing would be more
<v Speaker 1>of like just a covering that part up. Do you
<v Speaker 1>think that that might be what's going on with all
<v Speaker 1>this or do you think that that's not possible?
<v Speaker 2>No?
<v Speaker 3>Sure, And I think the point you made about the
<v Speaker 3>private sector is very important. I mean, it's you know,
<v Speaker 3>it doesn't of course all sorts of private sector entities
<v Speaker 3>are constantly called to testify to Congress. But again, there
<v Speaker 3>are there are degrees with this, and I think I
<v Speaker 3>think one one example that might be worth people's time
<v Speaker 3>looking into. And I don't I don't know whether you're
<v Speaker 3>familiar with this, and I don't know whether people watching
<v Speaker 3>this will have heard of it, but it's it's I
<v Speaker 3>haven't mentioned this very often because there are still sensitivities
<v Speaker 3>about it, but there's a really interesting model as to
<v Speaker 3>what the program might look like and where it where
<v Speaker 3>it might sit. And there was a group of was
<v Speaker 3>a group of people informally known as the Enterprise, which
<v Speaker 3>which is kind of another Star Trek reference, but but
<v Speaker 3>that's not the context that this was meant. But these
<v Speaker 3>these were a group of about half a dozen people
<v Speaker 3>at middle to senior level across a range of different
<v Speaker 3>organizations do OD, CIA, et cetera. And in the end,
<v Speaker 3>it all unraveled and quite a lot of them some
<v Speaker 3>of them ended up in jail.
<v Speaker 2>But some didn't.
<v Speaker 3>And if people look at the Enterprise, and they had
<v Speaker 3>their roots in things that went on in the Vietnam War,
<v Speaker 3>but it was still kind of going on and segued
<v Speaker 3>into some of the Iran contra.
<v Speaker 2>Narrative. But and I realized that's not exactly what.
<v Speaker 3>You asked me, But I think it's very relevant in
<v Speaker 3>terms of what a program might look like and where
<v Speaker 3>it might sit. Given that we discussed the fact that
<v Speaker 3>some of this might not be in government, the enterprise
<v Speaker 3>kind of was. I think you would describe it as
<v Speaker 3>quasi governmental, And there was always and I don't want
<v Speaker 3>to lapse into too many cliche terms, but there was
<v Speaker 3>always this paucible deniability about it. Yeah, but like I say,
<v Speaker 3>some some DoD some CIA. It's it's worth people's time
<v Speaker 3>to do a little bit of reading about the enterprise.
<v Speaker 3>People can look out the names, but it's colins.
<v Speaker 4>I was just gonna say.
<v Speaker 1>The plausible deniability aspect to me seems extremely important because
<v Speaker 1>that's how if anything goes wrong, the people in power
<v Speaker 1>can just say, hey, we had nothing to do with this.
<v Speaker 1>And then, from what you were saying earlier in terms
<v Speaker 1>of like is this even illegal or legal, that's a
<v Speaker 1>great point. More people should probably talk about that, like
<v Speaker 1>is what's going.
<v Speaker 4>On even legal?
<v Speaker 1>I would argue that they've got it set up in
<v Speaker 1>a way where most of the stuff that's happening is
<v Speaker 1>probably illgal. I mean, the only reason why I'm doing
<v Speaker 1>this stuff on a podcast is that I believe the
<v Speaker 1>US government pulled off a covert operation a civilian airliner,
<v Speaker 1>which I think a lot of people.
<v Speaker 4>Would say is a war crime. But if you really look.
<v Speaker 1>At the legality of it, international waters and what have you,
<v Speaker 1>it's like it actually gets a lot fuzzier than that.
<v Speaker 1>And that's one of the more clear cutcases versus just
<v Speaker 1>generally you know, having produced you know, UFO technology, which
<v Speaker 1>is like a victimless crime, you could argue. So I
<v Speaker 1>think it's gonna get really murky. But this is another
<v Speaker 1>dark aspect of the phenomenon that I wanted to ask
<v Speaker 1>you about, is that what if it turns out that
<v Speaker 1>it is real.
<v Speaker 4>We've let's say, we've reverse.
<v Speaker 1>Engineered this craft that landed in Roswell or we crashed
<v Speaker 1>in Roswell or what have you, and we gave it
<v Speaker 1>to whoever became Lockheed Martin. So locked Martin has a
<v Speaker 1>craft and they were reverse engineering it and they figured
<v Speaker 1>out that all these breakthroughs. And now we're like wanting
<v Speaker 1>to reveal that what happens to Lockheed Martin when we
<v Speaker 1>reveal that, yes, this is all true, they've got a craft.
<v Speaker 1>Do you think, like in my thought process would be
<v Speaker 1>that they're going to get sued out of existence because
<v Speaker 1>all their competitors who didn't get a UFO craft or
<v Speaker 1>reverse engineer, who are going to argue in court that
<v Speaker 1>like the government helped them out and gave them this
<v Speaker 1>craft and it turned them into a trillion dollar company.
<v Speaker 4>Like, what are your thoughts?
<v Speaker 3>Well, I suspect the people at Lockheed when this technology
<v Speaker 3>was transferred, if that's what happened, were smart enough to
<v Speaker 3>know that they needed some sort of They needed a
<v Speaker 3>piece of paper, you know, and you have this for Exampleaul,
<v Speaker 3>I know a little bit about this in relation to
<v Speaker 3>going to war without getting into the rights or wrongs
<v Speaker 3>of it. When there was the Second Gulf War, certainly
<v Speaker 3>in the United Kingdom, the Chief of the Defense Staff,
<v Speaker 3>so the equivalent, the UK equivalent of the Chairman of
<v Speaker 3>the Joint Chiefs, said basically to Tony Blair, the then
<v Speaker 3>Prime Minister, you know, I'm absolutely going to follow the
<v Speaker 3>order and you know, deploy, but I need a piece
<v Speaker 3>of paper to say that it's legal and so.
<v Speaker 4>And so.
<v Speaker 3>I yeah, and rightly so, because otherwise, you know, we
<v Speaker 3>were in the era of the International Criminal Court and
<v Speaker 3>he was just protecting his people.
<v Speaker 2>He said, I need a piece of paper to.
<v Speaker 3>Say it's legal, and well, I won't go down that
<v Speaker 3>road because there were a lot of dramas. But bringing
<v Speaker 3>it back to what we were discussing, I'm sure Lockheed
<v Speaker 3>or whoever it was, would have said I need a
<v Speaker 3>piece of paper, a presidential directive or something, so I
<v Speaker 3>suspect they will be all right. That being said, as
<v Speaker 3>I mentioned earlier, you don't really know whether something is
<v Speaker 3>legal or not. You can have a belief that it's legal,
<v Speaker 3>but until and unless it's challenged in court and a
<v Speaker 3>judge decides on it, then arguably you're in a gray area.
<v Speaker 3>But this is very important because this goes back to,
<v Speaker 3>of course, what nearly happened a little while ago with
<v Speaker 3>the Schumer Rounds Amendment. And as you will recall, the
<v Speaker 3>Schumer Rounds Amendment with its what was it, twenty four
<v Speaker 3>mentions of the term NHI in it was to have
<v Speaker 3>gone in to the National Defense Authorization Act, but for
<v Speaker 3>a number of reasons didn't. But one of the provisions
<v Speaker 3>in the Schumer Rounds Amendment was eminent domain. And what
<v Speaker 3>that would have done is it would have mandated the
<v Speaker 3>US government to take back any NHI technology, any biologics,
<v Speaker 3>all of the above. But it had had at some
<v Speaker 3>point but had then passed into the private sector, and
<v Speaker 3>it's very interesting that that didn't happen.
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, so I love the idea. I want to live
<v Speaker 4>in the universe some of them.
<v Speaker 1>Some people say that like we can manifest our consciousness
<v Speaker 1>can manifest reality. I am going to focus one hundred
<v Speaker 1>percent of my effort in a reality where Lockeed Martin
<v Speaker 1>pulls up a piece of paper that says President Truman
<v Speaker 1>signed off on this UFO release of technology. You can't
<v Speaker 1>hold us liable for getting this UFO because.
<v Speaker 4>That would just be amazing.
<v Speaker 1>But honestly, I'm glad you switched over the Schumer Amendment
<v Speaker 1>thing because I've been speculating that they're going to use
<v Speaker 1>some law like that, if not that, to give amnesty
<v Speaker 1>to all the people that have been working on this technology,
<v Speaker 1>figured it out, used it for like sketchy purposes, because,
<v Speaker 1>like what you said, whether.
<v Speaker 4>Or not it's legal or not is really going to
<v Speaker 4>be a matter.
<v Speaker 1>Of probably which administration is in charge, what their viewpoints are.
<v Speaker 1>It becomes all politics at that point, so it's gonna
<v Speaker 1>get really sticky. The whole point of bringing this up
<v Speaker 1>was to show people that really UFO disclosures is a
<v Speaker 1>lot more complicated than just like, hey, aliens are real guys.
<v Speaker 4>Like it's going to get into this sticky situation.
<v Speaker 1>So I want you to comment on that, but also
<v Speaker 1>just to ask, like, do you think that Trump administration
<v Speaker 1>is going You said they can change some of this stuff,
<v Speaker 1>they have some controls. Do you think they are going
<v Speaker 1>to change some aspect of UFO disclosure.
<v Speaker 3>If any president is going to disclose against the advice
<v Speaker 3>of the deep state, the bureaucracy, the civil service, whatever
<v Speaker 3>you call it, if any president's going to do it,
<v Speaker 3>it's going to be Trump in a second term, because
<v Speaker 3>just everything that we've seen in really the first few
<v Speaker 3>days of this administration shows you how radical this is.
<v Speaker 3>But there's another interesting point which actually goes back to
<v Speaker 3>the last days of the Biden administration. It speaks to
<v Speaker 3>your point about amnesty. The president can give a pardon,
<v Speaker 3>and that you could say, and this is the actually,
<v Speaker 3>this is the exception to my point that you don't
<v Speaker 3>know if it's legal or not until it gets to
<v Speaker 3>court and it's tested. Well, it won't even get to
<v Speaker 3>court if there's that Gordian knot solution of a retrospective
<v Speaker 3>presidential pardon. Now, we saw one of President Biden's very
<v Speaker 3>last actions was to give Fauci a pardon, which I
<v Speaker 3>think went back to correct me if I'm wrong, but
<v Speaker 3>twenty fourteen whatever it was. But there's no reason why
<v Speaker 3>a radical second term president like Trump couldn't say, in
<v Speaker 3>relation to UAP, I am giving a retrospective part to
<v Speaker 3>anyone who has been involved in this program, even if
<v Speaker 3>they have committed offenses which are illegal. I mean, it
<v Speaker 3>would just and in fact, you don't want to get
<v Speaker 3>down into the weeds. The most effective presidential pardon is
<v Speaker 3>just a very general one saying you have a pardon
<v Speaker 3>and it's back dated. That really is a get out
<v Speaker 3>of jail free card. Now, you know a lot of
<v Speaker 3>people in the UFO community. I think Steve Bassett's talked
<v Speaker 3>about it. Danny Sheen, who of course is a lawyer,
<v Speaker 3>has talked about it, have said what if and there
<v Speaker 3>are a lot of what ifs here, But what.
<v Speaker 2>If people have.
<v Speaker 3>You know, been responsible for well, David Grush testified under
<v Speaker 3>oath in Congress that people have been as he put it,
<v Speaker 3>harmed whatever that means in the keeping of this secret.
<v Speaker 3>What if the whole abduction thing is real and people
<v Speaker 3>have been subjected to nonconsensual experiences because the state decreed
<v Speaker 3>that it was going to do a deal. I'm speculating,
<v Speaker 3>but a lot of people say that this has happened. Well,
<v Speaker 3>you know, all those issues that sound very very complicated
<v Speaker 3>instantly become extremely simple if you get a blanket presidential
<v Speaker 3>pardon backdated.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, And I think that's the problem though, is that
<v Speaker 1>from the perspective, And this is why I was challenging
<v Speaker 1>the perspective of maybe the dark secret isn't it could
<v Speaker 1>be alien related, but maybe it's not just alien really,
<v Speaker 1>maybe the dark secrets us as well, you know, and
<v Speaker 1>what we've done because I think that it's like okay, well,
<v Speaker 1>you know, here's the example is like, what if we
<v Speaker 1>either disintegrated or annihilated a commercial airliner with UFO technology.
<v Speaker 1>It's like, okay, well, now we just killed hundreds of people.
<v Speaker 1>This is even beyond just the surprise of a single person.
<v Speaker 1>What if we've actually performed operations government operations with UFO technology.
<v Speaker 1>Now it's like, okay, how do you your pardon?
<v Speaker 2>Now?
<v Speaker 1>Where do you draw the line in your pardon? You
<v Speaker 1>got to have a thing in the party that says Okay,
<v Speaker 1>if you like actually like killed anybody, you can't this
<v Speaker 1>parton doesn't apply to you. But it's even gonna get
<v Speaker 1>murky then, and the lines of murkiness are just never ending.
<v Speaker 1>And then to some degree it won't even matter because
<v Speaker 1>the court of public opinion takes over at some point,
<v Speaker 1>like even if you pardon somebody, if they find out
<v Speaker 1>that you did something horrible, you know, like like abductions,
<v Speaker 1>like if you abduct if you were abducting people and
<v Speaker 1>it turns out that they can prove that you were
<v Speaker 1>actually responsible and coordinate abductions or not you but whoever
<v Speaker 1>out there, you know, public court of publican opinion is
<v Speaker 1>not going to care if you've got a pardon, you know.
<v Speaker 1>And so that's the part where I think it becomes.
<v Speaker 4>Like, if that's the truth, it actually.
<v Speaker 1>Kind of explains the sticky situation we're in right now,
<v Speaker 1>cause there has to be some reason why it's not
<v Speaker 1>just easy, you know, push it out there. So we've
<v Speaker 1>kind of covered a few of those reasons right now.
<v Speaker 1>And one of the other reasons I want to I
<v Speaker 1>want to just make sure we get some time for
<v Speaker 1>as well, is the dark side of or actually there's
<v Speaker 1>one more quote.
<v Speaker 4>I want to ask you about that.
<v Speaker 1>Then we're gonna get in the dark side of what
<v Speaker 1>the ETS situation, non human intelligence situation could be. Is
<v Speaker 1>that you're probably famili with a guy named ben Rich.
<v Speaker 1>He was director of Lockey Martin Skunkworks for many years,
<v Speaker 1>and he's you know, in the if you look on
<v Speaker 1>social media, see a lot of quotes and references to him,
<v Speaker 1>And you know, my favorite is he says, whatever you
<v Speaker 1>could imagine that we could have, you could have seen
<v Speaker 1>on TV or.
<v Speaker 4>What have you.
<v Speaker 1>We've already had the capability to do it, but it's
<v Speaker 1>been locked up in black projects and would take an
<v Speaker 1>act of God to get that information out.
<v Speaker 3>Uh.
<v Speaker 1>There's another clip where someone was asking him about you know,
<v Speaker 1>I'll just paraphrase basically saying like, how can this all
<v Speaker 1>be possible that we have like you're making crazy claims?
<v Speaker 4>How's this all possible? And ben Rich responds to the
<v Speaker 4>guy and says, well, how is ESP possible?
<v Speaker 1>Which is kind of an common to me. And the
<v Speaker 1>guy kind of thinks about it for a second and goes, well,
<v Speaker 1>all points in space and time are connected, and he says,
<v Speaker 1>exactly what are your.
<v Speaker 4>Thoughts on that?
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I've heard some debate about those ben Rich quotes
<v Speaker 3>and whether he was meaning them literally or whether he was,
<v Speaker 3>you know, either literally joking or making a more light hearted,
<v Speaker 3>nebulous kind of speculative metaphor or something. So I don't
<v Speaker 3>I really can't speak to that, but sure, I mean
<v Speaker 3>that there is a lot of tech out there and
<v Speaker 3>a lot of things that some people may understand and
<v Speaker 3>the rest of us, me immortals, don't. And it brings
<v Speaker 3>me on to one other point, which may or may
<v Speaker 3>not be connected with any of this, which I sort
<v Speaker 3>of throw into the conversation. I'm sure you've noticed, because
<v Speaker 3>I certainly have.
<v Speaker 4>That.
<v Speaker 2>You know, you watch the narrative.
<v Speaker 3>Unfold, and you watch what I would say is clearly
<v Speaker 3>a struggle for narrative control, even if the people are
<v Speaker 3>ostensibly quite friendly. But you look at all the players,
<v Speaker 3>and then you look at the narrative. And one thing
<v Speaker 3>that I've noticed, almost literally in the last couple of weeks,
<v Speaker 3>is how much the religiosity of this has suddenly ramped up.
<v Speaker 2>Suddenly everything is about.
<v Speaker 3>You know, Chris Bledsoe and Diana Pisulker and the Lady
<v Speaker 3>and and all of that. And I'm not I'm not
<v Speaker 3>drawing any conclusions from that. But when I, as a
<v Speaker 3>government guy, suddenly see the narrative do a subtle but
<v Speaker 3>noticeable change. There's there's clearly been a little course correction,
<v Speaker 3>I ask myself why that's happening, and I make a
<v Speaker 3>note for myself that something interesting has just happened.
<v Speaker 4>H Wow, interesting perspective. Yeah, I want to comment to that.
<v Speaker 1>So let's we'll hold the et thing for a second,
<v Speaker 1>because this goes into another one of the questions I
<v Speaker 1>was going to ask, is that So for me, I
<v Speaker 1>believe that ben Rich was one hundred percent telling the
<v Speaker 1>truth there. It's such a weird thing his thing to say,
<v Speaker 1>and then to back it up and not to like
<v Speaker 1>make it obviously laughing obvious that he was joking or
<v Speaker 1>something like that, especially given the position.
<v Speaker 4>That he was in. And the reason why I'm.
<v Speaker 1>Sure, in my opinion, is because I've also spent the
<v Speaker 1>time to talk to the engineers like Salvator Paist, who
<v Speaker 1>has the UFO patents. He's a friend of mine now
<v Speaker 1>from after having talked to him, I've spoken like Harvard
<v Speaker 1>physicist Aviy Lobe, even though, like I, you know, he
<v Speaker 1>doesn't necessarily know about black projects, but to like really
<v Speaker 1>understand the physics of it and come to the conclusion
<v Speaker 1>that like they've figured this out, like the UFO, the Navy,
<v Speaker 1>I think has figured this out, and these contracts because
<v Speaker 1>these guys like Pais also worked with like Lock Northrop
<v Speaker 1>Grumman as well a lot of people in the UFO community.
<v Speaker 4>They're more focused on talking to.
<v Speaker 1>Like whistleblowers, people that, like you know, they have stories,
<v Speaker 1>which is great if it's real or like you said,
<v Speaker 1>but the narrative that's being pushed right now, like I
<v Speaker 1>think Chris Bledsoe is pushing this like the Second Coming
<v Speaker 1>of Christ kind of narrative, and Diana Posulka, I think,
<v Speaker 1>also digs deep into the religiosity aspect of it. You
<v Speaker 1>know that worries me, and I want to know your
<v Speaker 1>opinion on this because I'm always very clear to people
<v Speaker 1>in terms of what I've been putting my con out
<v Speaker 1>that this is not a religion, This is not a
<v Speaker 1>cult that I'm doing. I'm just teaching people science and
<v Speaker 1>showing people the evidence, letting them come to their own conclusions,
<v Speaker 1>Versus when you're telling people's stories and you're trying to
<v Speaker 1>guide their perception, like to me, I'm very afraid of
<v Speaker 1>that happening around the UFO phenomenon, not just from the
<v Speaker 1>alien aspect, but also from like the transhuman aspect related
<v Speaker 1>to technology as well, and I want people to try
<v Speaker 1>to stay grounded in, you know, reality on some of
<v Speaker 1>that stuff, because I fear what that can do to
<v Speaker 1>our society if we if we develop this like cult
<v Speaker 1>like thinking around it.
<v Speaker 4>What are your thoughts.
<v Speaker 3>I completely share your concerns about that, and it's it's
<v Speaker 3>one of the reasons I mentioned it in our conversation
<v Speaker 3>today because I think it is it's interesting, and it's important,
<v Speaker 3>and it's concerning I think, and it's the other thing is, frankly,
<v Speaker 3>it's a gift to the skeptics because the skeptics will
<v Speaker 3>just turn around and say, well, look, they're just trying
<v Speaker 3>to create a new religion out of this. And we've
<v Speaker 3>we have seen literal UFO and extraterrestrial religions of course before,
<v Speaker 3>with things.
<v Speaker 2>Like the reliance.
<v Speaker 3>And there's no getting away from the fact that one
<v Speaker 3>one I won't say easy, but if you pull it off,
<v Speaker 3>very effective way of gaining simultaneously a lot of power
<v Speaker 3>and a lot of money is to create a new religion,
<v Speaker 3>and I share your concern that some aspects of what
<v Speaker 3>we're seeing now is sounding very much like a new religion.
<v Speaker 3>And I mean there's always been, of course, a new age,
<v Speaker 3>I'll call it a wing on the belief spectrum. There's
<v Speaker 3>always been a part of the UFO community has always
<v Speaker 3>been very new age of the Space Brothers. The Space
<v Speaker 3>Sisters are here to save us from ourselves, to prevent
<v Speaker 3>pollution of the planet, extermination of biodiversity, and to stop
<v Speaker 3>nuclear war, and to usher us into that galactic federation
<v Speaker 3>we were talking about earlier in our conversation. That's always
<v Speaker 3>been there, but I think there's been, as I say,
<v Speaker 3>a ramping up of this, and some of this is
<v Speaker 3>getting almost literally, you know, messianic with with this, like
<v Speaker 3>literally talking about the Second Coming. And then, of course,
<v Speaker 3>who do the kind of proponents of this theory then become,
<v Speaker 3>if not the profits of this new religion. And that
<v Speaker 3>may not be. It doesn't even have to be deliberate
<v Speaker 3>to be unfortunate, because I think we see we see
<v Speaker 3>all too often in the world. You know, religion is
<v Speaker 3>an incredibly powerful tool, and we see on a daily
<v Speaker 3>basis the kind of real world horrific outcomes that result
<v Speaker 3>from differences in beliefs. So should we really be saying, Hey,
<v Speaker 3>what the world needs is another religion? I'm saying, no, wait, stop,
<v Speaker 3>you know what are you doing here? And I'm kind
<v Speaker 3>of laughing about it, but it's a kind of laugh
<v Speaker 3>at at the absurdity of it in a sense, not funny, haha.
<v Speaker 3>But the whole ramping up at the religious narrative around
<v Speaker 3>this causes me huge concern.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I'm with you, And I'm also worried a little
<v Speaker 1>bit about the sensationalism that happens as well. You know,
<v Speaker 1>I think that that happened a lot with the egg
<v Speaker 1>UFO disclosure thing, where I think that if it wasn't
<v Speaker 1>sensationalized to being talked up to be in the next
<v Speaker 1>big thing or this was going to give a disclosure, I.
<v Speaker 4>Think it would have been great. I think it'd have
<v Speaker 4>been a great story.
<v Speaker 1>But instead they hyped it up to be like, oh,
<v Speaker 1>we're gonna have a video of a UFO craft, but
<v Speaker 1>it's just we can't tell what it is or anything
<v Speaker 1>like that. Do you concern Are you concerned about that
<v Speaker 1>at all in terms of like where ufology is headed
<v Speaker 1>right now? It doesn't feel very scientific based to me
<v Speaker 1>when I look out there at the field.
<v Speaker 3>No, I don't know what to make you. Jake Barber,
<v Speaker 3>I haven't met him. I've seen some interviews, of course,
<v Speaker 3>I've seen as if we all have. I'm sure everyone
<v Speaker 3>watching this we've seen the egg video. I would say
<v Speaker 3>about that what I would say about almost any photos
<v Speaker 3>and videos these days, In these days of AI, you
<v Speaker 3>just can't You just really can't tell anymore. And people say, well,
<v Speaker 3>there are programs out there that can can tell if
<v Speaker 3>something's AI generated or not. It just you get locked
<v Speaker 3>into an arms race. It's like missile. You develop a missile,
<v Speaker 3>then you develop an anti missile, then you develop an
<v Speaker 3>anti anti missile, and it's like, yeah, well, I'm sure
<v Speaker 3>there are ways of getting around the AI detectors using AI.
<v Speaker 3>So that's a very long winded way of saying I
<v Speaker 3>don't trust my eyes, and no pictures, whether there's still
<v Speaker 3>images or videos purporting to be of UAP, are really
<v Speaker 3>going to convince me. Because I've seen Hollywood movies that
<v Speaker 3>look great, and if someone presented that and said, hey,
<v Speaker 3>this is a declassified US military image.
<v Speaker 2>Of UAP, it would look great.
<v Speaker 3>But we know, Hollywood can do it, and if Hollywood
<v Speaker 3>can do it, other people can do it too, or
<v Speaker 3>Hollywood can do it for the US government. So pictures,
<v Speaker 3>you know, people used to say a picture paints you know,
<v Speaker 3>is worth a thousand words, but it really isn't these days.
<v Speaker 3>I think, you know what we need what we need,
<v Speaker 3>and I'm not saying this is the single answer, but
<v Speaker 3>we need Congress to continue to do what it has
<v Speaker 3>started to do to try to identify these people, verify
<v Speaker 3>their information, and then hold the government to account for this.
<v Speaker 4>I don't know.
<v Speaker 1>I got to go in a different direction with you
<v Speaker 1>on that one. Ah well, I mean I agree with
<v Speaker 1>you can't really believe anything that you see anymore. Is
<v Speaker 1>I get caught with seeing and believing fake stuff all
<v Speaker 1>the time because everything's so it's hard to tell these
<v Speaker 1>days with AI and everything, you know, so definitely happens.
<v Speaker 1>I agree in that front. But the problem is more
<v Speaker 1>people telling stories.
<v Speaker 4>I was this, I was that I how.
<v Speaker 1>To communicate telepathic communication with this alien or whatever, you know,
<v Speaker 1>And it doesn't have to be that sensationalist. But more stories,
<v Speaker 1>I don't think, are pushing the needle anymore like we need.
<v Speaker 1>It's like this was getting my questions, like, how do
<v Speaker 1>we even achieve disclosure in a world where stories aren't
<v Speaker 1>good enough? But we also can't really believe what we
<v Speaker 1>see with our eyes. And to take even a step further,
<v Speaker 1>just to be honest with you, if Joe Biden had
<v Speaker 1>come out and said, hey, aliens are real, I'd pretty
<v Speaker 1>much be sure they're not anymore.
<v Speaker 4>At that point.
<v Speaker 1>So I can't really trust any branch of any of
<v Speaker 1>these things.
<v Speaker 4>How do we achieve disclosure? What are your what are
<v Speaker 4>your thoughts?
<v Speaker 3>I you're articulating a very real problem, and I don't
<v Speaker 3>I don't have an answer to it, because you're right.
<v Speaker 3>I could push back and say, well, Congress does vet
<v Speaker 3>these people before before anyone gets anywhere near even talking
<v Speaker 3>to a congressional representative, they will usually go through one
<v Speaker 3>or more staffers who will look into their background, and
<v Speaker 3>so before any of these people testify, a good deal
<v Speaker 3>of vetting has has gone on. And I've been peripherally involved.
<v Speaker 3>I once had a job in the Directorate of Defense Security.
<v Speaker 3>I didn't do vetting, but the people that did vetting
<v Speaker 3>we were in a nearby part of the organization, and
<v Speaker 3>of course I was vetted myself, for example, to get
<v Speaker 3>various security clearances, so that vetting is part of the answer.
<v Speaker 3>But yes, even with vetting, I agree with you, it
<v Speaker 3>is just more stories. And then you hit the problem
<v Speaker 3>of the polarization of our society. And you mentioned, you know,
<v Speaker 3>if Joe Biden had said, as his almost his last action, okay,
<v Speaker 3>there's an alien presence, half of the population wouldn't.
<v Speaker 2>Have believed it.
<v Speaker 3>Conversely, I'll flip it and I'll say, if President Trump
<v Speaker 3>were now to disclose, the other half of the population
<v Speaker 3>would probably say.
<v Speaker 2>Well, I don't believe it.
<v Speaker 3>It's some sinister Maga plot, you know, probably of part
<v Speaker 3>of Project twenty twenty five, only this time it's Project
<v Speaker 3>twenty twenty seven, with all this talk.
<v Speaker 2>Of whatever's gonna happen in twenty twenty seven.
<v Speaker 1>So even the mag even the Maga people, even half
<v Speaker 1>of them, wouldn't believe it. Even half of them would
<v Speaker 1>be like, oh, no, Trump got bought out by the
<v Speaker 1>Lizard people.
<v Speaker 4>Now, crap.
<v Speaker 1>So that's why that wouldn't even work either, Like there's
<v Speaker 1>no like we're just kind of stuck in this era.
<v Speaker 1>But I do think there might be video evidence that
<v Speaker 1>could convince people, you know, in that hearing, Tim Galladat,
<v Speaker 1>who was a former Rear admiral I believe, and also
<v Speaker 1>Michael Shallenberger who's a journalist but he was I think
<v Speaker 1>speaking on behalf of a whistleblower that was not coming
<v Speaker 1>that's not going public. They both said that we've got
<v Speaker 1>some archive called Immaculate Constellation that is got hundreds or
<v Speaker 1>thousands of satellite videos and other surveillance that we've collected.
<v Speaker 1>And I looked into our surveillance or like you know,
<v Speaker 1>US surveillance systems in the last year and a half,
<v Speaker 1>and we do we do have crazy stuff like that,
<v Speaker 1>So I'm not I have no doubt we have stuff
<v Speaker 1>where like if we were to release it, it would
<v Speaker 1>be people would probably be able to deny like one
<v Speaker 1>or two videos, but if they were released like a dozen,
<v Speaker 1>it would just make them obvious that we were going
<v Speaker 1>to see go ahead.
<v Speaker 2>Maybe.
<v Speaker 3>But even then, I mean, we've we've had, you know,
<v Speaker 3>from from the sort of start of this going mainstream
<v Speaker 3>in December twenty seventeen with the New York Times article.
<v Speaker 3>We very quickly had those three US Navy videos, but
<v Speaker 3>we incidantly had pushback from people like mcwest putting alternative
<v Speaker 3>hypotheses forward for that. And let's just suppose immaculate constellation
<v Speaker 3>is true and we suddenly get not three videos.
<v Speaker 2>But you know, thirty or three hundred videos.
<v Speaker 3>There'll still be some people that say, so what, it's
<v Speaker 3>just more of the same, which brings us to one
<v Speaker 3>possible answer to all of this is going to be
<v Speaker 3>that it's going to be science, but it's going to
<v Speaker 3>be for example, astronomy. And one answer to the question
<v Speaker 3>we were talking about what gets you into the Galactic Federation?
<v Speaker 3>Another question, Let's flip the question and say, at what
<v Speaker 3>point does the government, if they are gatekeepers of this,
<v Speaker 3>not keep it secret anymore? And one possible answer to
<v Speaker 3>that question is the point which the secret can no
<v Speaker 3>longer be kept. And let's just suppose that, for example,
<v Speaker 3>James web Space telescope suddenly looks in the right place
<v Speaker 3>and somewhere orbiting a very nearby star they find, you know,
<v Speaker 3>a Dyson sphere or something like that. It's something that's
<v Speaker 3>not just a bio signature but a techno signature, and
<v Speaker 3>it's repeatable, and it's you know, it fulfills all the
<v Speaker 3>criteria of the scientific method in terms of falsifiability, and
<v Speaker 3>repeatability and et cetera. Maybe that's the threshold. Maybe that's
<v Speaker 3>what's going to push us over the line. And of
<v Speaker 3>course there have been rumors. You'll have heard the rumors.
<v Speaker 3>They've been around for at least a year now, Rumors
<v Speaker 3>that James Webspace Telescope has found something.
<v Speaker 4>Wouldn't surprise me at all.
<v Speaker 1>I spoke to Professor Simon Holland you should speak to
<v Speaker 1>him if you haven't.
<v Speaker 4>Actually, you guys will definitely get along. Oh yeah, you have.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, a great guy, and he's got connections the people
<v Speaker 1>that worked in SETI and like the European version of SETI,
<v Speaker 1>And yeah, he's pretty much told me. I think we've
<v Speaker 1>got recorded that said, like his contacts say like absolutely,
<v Speaker 1>we've had communications, we potentially have faster like communication, and
<v Speaker 1>they're hiding that as well. I think you're right that
<v Speaker 1>probably the only time we'll get disclosure, if we're being
<v Speaker 1>really honest with ourselves, is when they can't keep it
<v Speaker 1>secret anymore. And then it's just a matter of like
<v Speaker 1>what does it can't keep a secret anymore?
<v Speaker 4>Look like?
<v Speaker 1>And that's a hard question because I think that you know,
<v Speaker 1>even if we see something up there, like like you said,
<v Speaker 1>there's always gonna be the skeptics that are gonna be
<v Speaker 1>able to try to, you know, cast mud or doubt
<v Speaker 1>on whatever the evidence is of something abnormal. And that's
<v Speaker 1>where I think you're right. We have to use science.
<v Speaker 1>And I wasn't gonna bring all this up, but I
<v Speaker 1>I want to show you what my hall passes on
<v Speaker 1>that because I just want people out there to realize,
<v Speaker 1>like I think, there are ways where we can use
<v Speaker 1>science and we can achieve disclosure if we were to
<v Speaker 1>just get the right kind of video evidence that would
<v Speaker 1>support it. Because in science, we've got the thing about
<v Speaker 1>science that our understanding of the universe right now that
<v Speaker 1>might be limited, is that we think that space is
<v Speaker 1>potentially empty. And in this video, just for these few
<v Speaker 1>seconds here you see endothermic propulsion and you also see
<v Speaker 1>an endothermic event. This event is black. The point being
<v Speaker 1>this is a thermal video, and any type of event
<v Speaker 1>that we were to see that was conventional from our
<v Speaker 1>perspective of physics, we would expect this to be white
<v Speaker 1>hot type of event or release of energy. If we
<v Speaker 1>see something like this, if those the videos from twenty seventy,
<v Speaker 1>those videos showed propulsion like this or the cameras could
<v Speaker 1>pick up that. I think that just from a scientific perspective,
<v Speaker 1>we don't need anything else beyond that. That's all I
<v Speaker 1>think that we need from the scientific perspective, and my
<v Speaker 1>argument being that the smart physicists and what have you,
<v Speaker 1>they're gonna be able to figure out just from videos
<v Speaker 1>with that much detail what it is we're missing from
<v Speaker 1>our perspective of the universe. And that's what scares me.
<v Speaker 1>That's why my opinion is that they must have figured
<v Speaker 1>it out. They must have figured it out, and then
<v Speaker 1>they're hiding that those puzzle pieces from us, and that's
<v Speaker 1>why they also don't want us to see the immaculate
<v Speaker 1>constellation videos. And then one last thought is I also
<v Speaker 1>think that this is why they're filming in flear the
<v Speaker 1>forward looking in for red. I remember having like being
<v Speaker 1>so confused looking at those DoD Navy videos until that
<v Speaker 1>was all explained to me that, oh, it's infrared and
<v Speaker 1>we're using these special cameras, and I'm like, why are
<v Speaker 1>we why are we use in that? And then you
<v Speaker 1>go all the wait, if we're looking at UFOs and
<v Speaker 1>we can see some special physics property of them using
<v Speaker 1>these videos, then it all starts to make sense.
<v Speaker 4>What are your thoughts?
<v Speaker 2>Sure?
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I mean, as you know, there's a whole branch
<v Speaker 3>of of intelligence called masin which is measurement and signature analysis.
<v Speaker 3>It's intelligence, pardon me, and and so you know that
<v Speaker 3>that can can you know, depending on which definition you use,
<v Speaker 3>can they cover an awful lot of these these ways
<v Speaker 3>of of gathering data and then analyzing data, whether it's
<v Speaker 3>using using conventional radar, whether it's using flear, whatever it is.
<v Speaker 2>Now.
<v Speaker 3>Of course, you know, some people will say that you
<v Speaker 3>can only of course get the data that that your
<v Speaker 3>your sensor platforms are configured to collect. I mean, that's
<v Speaker 3>kind of a truism, and that has led some people
<v Speaker 3>who've been brief in Congress to suggest to Congress that
<v Speaker 3>they put into the National Defense Authorization Act, which they
<v Speaker 3>have the idea that you need in different kinds of sensors,
<v Speaker 3>because what we've generally found with a lot of this
<v Speaker 3>is that we're dealing with accidental capture and it's kind
<v Speaker 3>of a mindset issue. It's like we only realized how
<v Speaker 3>much how prevalent UAP were when we started to pick
<v Speaker 3>them up when we weren't really looking for them. All
<v Speaker 3>our systems, of course, were configured on very conventional threats.
<v Speaker 3>All our radar systems. People say, well, why don't we,
<v Speaker 3>you know, detect things coming from from the upper atmosphere
<v Speaker 3>down with radar systems, because our radar systems are generally
<v Speaker 3>looking for a conventional attack from Russia or China, you know,
<v Speaker 3>I mean, it's literally pointed in the wrong direction. So
<v Speaker 3>now there is this mindset that, wait, we've been missing something,
<v Speaker 3>and if this is more prevalent than we thought, we
<v Speaker 3>need to Firstly, we need to do three things. Firstly,
<v Speaker 3>we need to change our mindset. That's almost the most
<v Speaker 3>important thing of all. You won't find something if you're
<v Speaker 3>not even looking for it. But then you need to
<v Speaker 3>reconfigure the sensor platforms that you have and point them
<v Speaker 3>in the right direction. And then the third thing that
<v Speaker 3>you need to do, which Congress is is kind of
<v Speaker 3>alive to, is.
<v Speaker 2>That you need to design new.
<v Speaker 3>Kind of sensor platforms so that you can get the
<v Speaker 3>data you need. And it's those data that are going
<v Speaker 3>to maybe push you over the line with this. But
<v Speaker 3>you know, just rounding that off and rewinding one point
<v Speaker 3>that I didn't make about how all this might suddenly
<v Speaker 3>kind of come out. Is of course, if the phenomenon itself.
<v Speaker 3>You know, when we talk about what the trigger point is,
<v Speaker 3>whether it's for joining a galactic federation or for disclosure
<v Speaker 3>or whatever, well, let's not forget that the phenomenon itself
<v Speaker 3>has a say in this, one might logically presume. So
<v Speaker 3>there might be a point where the phenomenon, perhaps for
<v Speaker 3>the same reason realizing that even it cannot really operate
<v Speaker 3>unseen anymore, just decides okay, then secrecy becomes redundant.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, And for me, it's like, I don't know exactly
<v Speaker 1>where this comes from, but I'm pretty convinced that we've
<v Speaker 1>got this technology.
<v Speaker 4>How to get it out.
<v Speaker 1>Seems like a huge, complex web and a mess. I
<v Speaker 1>think that the last topic I want to broach on
<v Speaker 1>is the more fantastical side of it, which is, okay
<v Speaker 1>if there is this dark aspect of it. I think
<v Speaker 1>there must be a dark aspect of it, because they
<v Speaker 1>would have otherwise let it out. I think there's absolutely
<v Speaker 1>got to be UFOs going on, whether or not there's
<v Speaker 1>some US, some aliens, or some other.
<v Speaker 4>Non human intelligence explanation.
<v Speaker 1>I think there can be multiple answers, and the weird
<v Speaker 1>part is the more I learned, the less I know,
<v Speaker 1>the less sure I am about where I think the
<v Speaker 1>nature of it is coming from. But it's fun to speculate,
<v Speaker 1>and so if there is some dark aspect, I want
<v Speaker 1>to explore a few ideas that we can kind of
<v Speaker 1>come up with. The one that scares me the most
<v Speaker 1>is this idea of a prison planet, where like, if
<v Speaker 1>there is a threshold, for example, that we have to
<v Speaker 1>get above, Like if we're not above that threshold, you're
<v Speaker 1>on the prison planet and you're not part of the party.
<v Speaker 1>You're not in the club. And until you can show
<v Speaker 1>that you're above that threshold and that you're like maybe
<v Speaker 1>a non violent species or whatever, however, society has to
<v Speaker 1>be arranged.
<v Speaker 4>You just don't get to come into the club.
<v Speaker 1>And if you get too out of hand, we come
<v Speaker 1>in and we just spank you a little bit till
<v Speaker 1>you go back, you know, down. Like what do you
<v Speaker 1>think about that the prison plan in it type scenario?
<v Speaker 3>Absolutely, I think it goes back to the point that
<v Speaker 3>I was making about if a dominant idea or belief
<v Speaker 3>system has emerged in the universe, then that might represent.
<v Speaker 2>A sort of order that is imposed.
<v Speaker 3>That would then mean that civilizations are only accepted in
<v Speaker 3>when when they have demonstrated themselves capable of operating to
<v Speaker 3>that order. And I mentioned that it might be moral,
<v Speaker 3>and so you know, you can have all sorts of
<v Speaker 3>speculation about what it might be. It might be something
<v Speaker 3>that we regard as quite trivial. But let's just suppose
<v Speaker 3>that a dominant narrative has emerged in the universe that
<v Speaker 3>we would we would characterize us as, say, veganism for example.
<v Speaker 3>You know, I sort of I don't want to frame
<v Speaker 3>it in a religious sense, but I will for.
<v Speaker 2>The purposes of this.
<v Speaker 3>Let's suppose that the dominant kind of belief system in
<v Speaker 3>the universe is thou shalt not eat something else which
<v Speaker 3>is alive, and that any civilization that does that is
<v Speaker 3>regarded as as disgusting, as primitive. You know, and I'm
<v Speaker 3>not vegan or vegetarian myself. I'm just using this as
<v Speaker 3>an example that we really have no idea what that
<v Speaker 3>dominant theme or belief might be. But it does seem
<v Speaker 3>logical that you know, dominant or we see again watch
<v Speaker 3>for the anthropocentrism, but that you know, you would say
<v Speaker 3>that most societies on Earth have have developed, whether it's
<v Speaker 3>a legal and or a moral code, but you know
<v Speaker 3>you shouldn't kill fellow human beings. Well, of course, we
<v Speaker 3>kill people all the time.
<v Speaker 2>For all sorts of reasons.
<v Speaker 3>And then you could say, there's an even more dominant
<v Speaker 3>belief that says you shouldn't kill a child. But again,
<v Speaker 3>children are killed all the time in warfare, usually inadvertently,
<v Speaker 3>but sometimes by people who are pathological and sometimes through a.
<v Speaker 1>Let me, let me take a dark twist on this,
<v Speaker 1>is that what if the moral requirement to get over
<v Speaker 1>the threshold is not what if the moral requirement to
<v Speaker 1>get over the threshold is totalitarianism? Where now your choice is,
<v Speaker 1>if you want full disclosure of the technology and non
<v Speaker 1>human intelligence, you have to become a totalitarian society. A
<v Speaker 1>completely collective is society where nobody steps out of line,
<v Speaker 1>and that's what's required. Would you still want it, yell?
<v Speaker 1>If I give you that choice, go ahead, No.
<v Speaker 3>So it And it's a very you make it very
<v Speaker 3>interesting point because it goes back to the idea that
<v Speaker 3>a dominant belief system in the universe might be something
<v Speaker 3>completely unintended, alien to what we would would require. It
<v Speaker 3>might be something that we regard fundamentally as a bad thing,
<v Speaker 3>so you know, the threshold, or it might be something
<v Speaker 3>so bizarre and abstract that it would seem to us
<v Speaker 3>completely foolish or ridiculous. There's no reason why a dominant
<v Speaker 3>idea has to necessarily be a moral one or even
<v Speaker 3>a logical one. History shows us that from time to time,
<v Speaker 3>you know, not on a whole world scale, but certainly
<v Speaker 3>on an empire scale, all sorts of abhorrent ideas become
<v Speaker 3>the accepted norm, like child sacrifice. Many many civilizations in
<v Speaker 3>human history practiced child sacrifice.
<v Speaker 2>Now we would regard.
<v Speaker 3>It as, as you know, absolutely reprehensible, but for a
<v Speaker 3>time in human history, it was a dominant belief system.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and that's where it worries me, because I fear
<v Speaker 1>that we're talking about the dark sides of it and
<v Speaker 1>we're trying to come up with rationales for why you
<v Speaker 1>keep it secret.
<v Speaker 4>That would be a pretty good reason if it.
<v Speaker 1>Turns out, Hey, yeah, there is a galactic Federation, but
<v Speaker 1>they're basically space Nazis, you know, I mean, I'm exaggerating,
<v Speaker 1>but they're completely totalitarian.
<v Speaker 4>Everybody.
<v Speaker 1>You have to give up all your freedoms everybody like
<v Speaker 1>that is a pretty big deal for a lot of
<v Speaker 1>people out there, and I could see why that would
<v Speaker 1>be a type of dark situation where it's like you get,
<v Speaker 1>here's this great thing.
<v Speaker 4>You get all this energy, but it comes with.
<v Speaker 1>A pretty heavy cost, pretty heavy burden.
<v Speaker 4>So that's one.
<v Speaker 1>I have three different scenarios I kind of want to
<v Speaker 1>judge with you, and I love your take on that
<v Speaker 1>as well.
<v Speaker 4>The second one is what fits AI.
<v Speaker 1>Now, we've seen the advance of AI, and this is
<v Speaker 1>where I want your perspective because you're even a little
<v Speaker 1>bit older than I am, and so you've kind of
<v Speaker 1>seen this whole evolution of computers and technology. To me,
<v Speaker 1>AI has come out of nowhere and its evolution is exponential.
<v Speaker 1>It feels like and if it has access to an
<v Speaker 1>exotic energy source that maybe UFOs have figured out, aliens
<v Speaker 1>figure out, it potentially could take off. And the speed
<v Speaker 1>at which it's happening blows my mind.
<v Speaker 4>And then if you look at physics, there's.
<v Speaker 1>This concept of the holographic principle, which essentially says is
<v Speaker 1>that all the information can be encoded on the barrier,
<v Speaker 1>which is this idea that our universe might not be
<v Speaker 1>it might be a projection on a from a lower
<v Speaker 1>dimensional state. Potentially is what we're experiencing, which goes this
<v Speaker 1>idea of maybe everything's a simulation. So when I think
<v Speaker 1>of the AI taking over, I wonder is the whole
<v Speaker 1>world this giant simulation? The AI already took over a
<v Speaker 1>long time ago. What is your thoughts about A in
<v Speaker 1>general on how it connects to the UFO phenomenon.
<v Speaker 3>Well, I remember attending a Royal Society discussion meeting in
<v Speaker 3>the UK in twenty ten I think it was, and
<v Speaker 3>Stephen Dick, who was NASA's former chief historian, speculated that
<v Speaker 3>we might be living in a largely post biological universe,
<v Speaker 3>as he put it, populated by immortal thinking machines. And
<v Speaker 3>this was at the Royal Society. So and now that
<v Speaker 3>idea might have sounded very bizarre. Then now with the
<v Speaker 3>rise of AI, I think his view might be a
<v Speaker 3>little more accepted. But yes, absolutely, And what if that's
<v Speaker 3>the threshold. What if we are in that post biological
<v Speaker 3>or largely post biological universe where actually the galactic Federation
<v Speaker 3>is AI, and where biologicals are regarded as primitive and dirty,
<v Speaker 3>and only when we evolve into our or are replaced
<v Speaker 3>by AI will we will be accepted into the galactic Federation.
<v Speaker 3>In other words, is there a sort of no biologics
<v Speaker 3>rule out there?
<v Speaker 1>Is that the dominant we're hitting stuff that I don't
<v Speaker 1>think anybody's talked about no biologics rule, Like I could
<v Speaker 1>see something like that too. Imagine if that's the case,
<v Speaker 1>are you gonna upload yourself.
<v Speaker 4>To the to the cloud? Uh? Nick, if you get
<v Speaker 4>the chance in your lifetime.
<v Speaker 3>I'm not sure about that one, but you know, you know,
<v Speaker 3>now I would say I'm not sure or or whatever.
<v Speaker 3>But let's suppose that I was painfully and terminally ill
<v Speaker 3>and dying. I'm sure my answer would be very different.
<v Speaker 4>It's a scary thought.
<v Speaker 1>And this is why this is another one of the
<v Speaker 1>dark answers to me is not necessarily where AI that
<v Speaker 1>right now, but to the trajectory of AI and the
<v Speaker 1>idea that we could reach a point where we have
<v Speaker 1>capability to store a consciousness of a person on a server.
<v Speaker 1>It's you know, it sounds like science fiction, but the
<v Speaker 1>way things have advanced so far, it seems like it
<v Speaker 1>could happen within our lifetimes and that could be a
<v Speaker 1>real choice that somebody has to make. And if you
<v Speaker 1>really take it to its extreme, you say Okay, well,
<v Speaker 1>maybe it starts with people who are terminal who are
<v Speaker 1>uploading themselves, but then it gets more and more accepted,
<v Speaker 1>to the point where now all of your friends have
<v Speaker 1>all uploaded themselves and you're the only biological person left.
<v Speaker 1>Can you imagine the peer pressure to upload yourself now
<v Speaker 1>as well with everybody else and hang out with your
<v Speaker 1>family forever where you never age ever again. I mean,
<v Speaker 1>this is dark, but you know it's starting to become
<v Speaker 1>like realistic future. I mean, Emerald Robinson just asked me
<v Speaker 1>the other day about this, is like, do you think
<v Speaker 1>that Larry Ellison, like the owner of Oracle and these
<v Speaker 1>other billionaires, that that's.
<v Speaker 4>What they're doing.
<v Speaker 1>I just told her, yeah, I think that's what they're
<v Speaker 1>plan is so kind of scary. Any other thoughts on
<v Speaker 1>that one?
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, that's that's one option, and I don't I don't
<v Speaker 3>know whether the technology will ever allow us to do that,
<v Speaker 3>because in one sense, it then plays into an almost
<v Speaker 3>unknowable discussion about consciousness and you know, using a religious language,
<v Speaker 3>the soul, and you know, would it actually be you?
<v Speaker 3>And then that gets you to to again philosophical questions
<v Speaker 3>like let's suppose AI becomes self aware and sentient. How
<v Speaker 3>could you ever, you know, we talk about a Turing
<v Speaker 3>test and a new Turing test, How could we ever
<v Speaker 3>become absolutely certain that something was sentient AI was sentient
<v Speaker 3>as opposed to just perfectly mimicking sentience, And that, of
<v Speaker 3>course gets that's just philosophy, and it's it's maybe unknowable.
<v Speaker 3>And so in all these scenarios, I guess there's the
<v Speaker 3>idea that we might merge with AI, and you know,
<v Speaker 3>you talk about transhumanism and uploading ourselves into the cloud.
<v Speaker 3>But another alternative is that we are simply displaced in
<v Speaker 3>a sort of Darwinian way by the AI which we create,
<v Speaker 3>which evolves beyond us, whether or not it's sentient. In
<v Speaker 3>one sense, it doesn't matter if it's sentient or if
<v Speaker 3>it's just you know, mimicking sentience. It could still replace
<v Speaker 3>us either way.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, a distinction without a difference, I guess they would
<v Speaker 1>say at some point is if it's acting like a
<v Speaker 1>conscious being, what's the difference? And yeah, So the AI thing,
<v Speaker 1>I think is very scary, especially because of how fast
<v Speaker 1>it's evolved and how you know, you would think, how
<v Speaker 1>what would it look like with a million years of
<v Speaker 1>advancement for AI, and also would an AI even experience
<v Speaker 1>time I am at the same rate that we do.
<v Speaker 1>And this is what leads me into the last theory
<v Speaker 1>that I want to broach with you.
<v Speaker 4>Dark theory is that as I've.
<v Speaker 1>Researched zero point energy gravity manipulation, one of the things
<v Speaker 1>that keeps coming up over and over again is that
<v Speaker 1>if you manipulate gravity, you manipulate the flow of time.
<v Speaker 1>And what that means is this turns any UFO that's
<v Speaker 1>using a gravity propulsion system into a time machine. But
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't necessarily work like in the movies. My current
<v Speaker 1>understanding of how it work would be more of like you
<v Speaker 1>might be able to like reverse aging in a certain region,
<v Speaker 1>but you're not going to like go back to like
<v Speaker 1>nineteen fifty or something like that. But anyway, the reason
<v Speaker 1>why I bring this up is that if you look
<v Speaker 1>at like the double slid experiment, the most mysterious experiment
<v Speaker 1>in physics, and the variant on it called the delayed
<v Speaker 1>choice quantum eraser, the delayed choice quantum eraser variant presents
<v Speaker 1>strong evidence that information can flow from the future to
<v Speaker 1>the present. And this is why I think a lot
<v Speaker 1>of people in the UFO community have presented this theory
<v Speaker 1>of future humans, that maybe the phenomenon is us using
<v Speaker 1>time machines manipulating gravity and we're seeing temporal distortions, or
<v Speaker 1>there are situations like Jacks are Foddy claims you got
<v Speaker 1>a phone call from the future, so there might be
<v Speaker 1>situations where messages were able to go theoretically to the past,
<v Speaker 1>and that would then spark us to achieve some technological
<v Speaker 1>breakthroughs that we weren't otherwise been ready for. What is
<v Speaker 1>your thoughts on the future humans hypothesis or explanation for
<v Speaker 1>non human intelligence?
<v Speaker 2>Sure?
<v Speaker 3>Well, I mean UFO witnesses like Jim Peniston from the
<v Speaker 3>Rangdalsham Forest case believe that this was a craft from
<v Speaker 3>the future and not from another civilization across the start.
<v Speaker 3>And interestingly, I guess I was aware of the Jank
<v Speaker 3>Safati story and I met Jack some years ago in
<v Speaker 3>London actually, But of course somebody who I haven't met
<v Speaker 3>but I'm aware of his work is Professor Ronald Mallet,
<v Speaker 3>and as one of the few theoretical physicists doing researcher
<v Speaker 3>into time travel, I thought it was very interesting that
<v Speaker 3>Professor Mallett talked about using subatomic particles with a spin
<v Speaker 3>state of either up or down to send a basically
<v Speaker 3>a binary message back through time through controlling the spin
<v Speaker 3>state to be either up or down and thus enabling
<v Speaker 3>you to send a binary message, because that ties in
<v Speaker 3>almost exactly with what Jim Peniston from the Wrangles from
<v Speaker 3>Forest incident encountered with a binary message. So I don't
<v Speaker 3>have the I don't have the the scientific understanding of
<v Speaker 3>any of this, but I'm aware that some people like
<v Speaker 3>Professor Mallett are looking at these sorts of areas and
<v Speaker 3>absolutely that would be very dark side, because I guess again,
<v Speaker 3>I only have a sci fi understanding of this and
<v Speaker 3>not a science understanding. But my understanding of things like
<v Speaker 3>Grandfather paradox leads me to believe that that in and
<v Speaker 3>of itself might explain secrecy, because if you start interacting
<v Speaker 3>with something too much, you run into that Grandfather paradox
<v Speaker 3>more and more so. Absolutely, I have a presentation which
<v Speaker 3>I've given a couple of times talking about this dark side,
<v Speaker 3>and the presentation is called a Secret too terrible to
<v Speaker 3>be told. And absolutely the idea that some of this
<v Speaker 3>relates to time is is one part of that presentation.
<v Speaker 3>And again to anyone who who thinks this sounds strange,
<v Speaker 3>I say, look up into the night sky, and people
<v Speaker 3>often don't realize, but they are looking literally back in time.
<v Speaker 3>When you look at the moon, you're seeing it as
<v Speaker 3>it was one and a half seconds ago. If if
<v Speaker 3>you look at proximate centuri, you're looking at it just
<v Speaker 3>over four years ago. If you're looking at some of
<v Speaker 3>the distant objects, they're not there anymore.
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and time travel be in the dark aspect, would
<v Speaker 1>that would make sense as well? You can't just let
<v Speaker 1>everybody have a time travel device that's out there. And
<v Speaker 1>we've determined that negative time is a real phenomenal.
<v Speaker 4>We don't really know exactly what negative time means.
<v Speaker 1>So that's why the whole time travel aspect, like, okay,
<v Speaker 1>if we can go back in time, are there limits?
<v Speaker 1>And I don't think anybody that claims to know for sure,
<v Speaker 1>I'm not really gonna trust them. Because it could be
<v Speaker 1>a deterministic scenario like you say, or you have these
<v Speaker 1>paradoxes like you can't go back and harm your relatives
<v Speaker 1>or you would never exist. But it could also be
<v Speaker 1>a many world scenario where there might be infinite universes
<v Speaker 1>of all different possibilities that are happening in all the time.
<v Speaker 1>In either of those scenarios, the government or whoever doesn't
<v Speaker 1>want people random people that are messing around the timelines
<v Speaker 1>or you know, whatever else might be going on.
<v Speaker 4>That's dangerous, right, It's.
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, it is literally in that scenario or an extinction
<v Speaker 3>level event, because a particular timeline would be altered and
<v Speaker 3>you would flip into a parallel universe.
<v Speaker 4>Yeah.
<v Speaker 1>So these are the reasons why I prefer more like
<v Speaker 1>dark explanations, because as much as these seem more implausible,
<v Speaker 1>harder to accept or believe, some of them, I think
<v Speaker 1>are getting easier to accept, like the AI scenarios and
<v Speaker 1>others are getting easier to accept just from the advancement
<v Speaker 1>of science that we're having happen. But I think that
<v Speaker 1>there must be a dark explanation. I think that if
<v Speaker 1>there was just some easy answer at all this, it
<v Speaker 1>would all come out long ago. And I think there
<v Speaker 1>must be something there because how far back the history
<v Speaker 1>of it. And then when I talk to people like
<v Speaker 1>you who've researched it, and we're in positions related to
<v Speaker 1>the government, who've talked who have you know, looked into it,
<v Speaker 1>there's something out there happening. So if it was something easy,
<v Speaker 1>they would have already let us know all about it.
<v Speaker 1>So it's been fun, uh, Nick Pope to explore all
<v Speaker 1>these topics with you. Thank you so much for being
<v Speaker 1>my guest today, and I just want to give you
<v Speaker 1>a chance to shout out any projects that you're working
<v Speaker 1>on or where people can find you.
<v Speaker 3>Thank you, and I've enjoyed this conversation too. It's taken
<v Speaker 3>us to some very interesting and I think unusual and
<v Speaker 3>unexpected places that I don't normally get into and interviews,
<v Speaker 3>so so thank you for that For people who want
<v Speaker 3>to know a little bit more about me and my work.
<v Speaker 3>My website is Nick Pope dot net. The social media
<v Speaker 3>platform on which I'm most active is x formerly known
<v Speaker 3>as Twitter, where my handle is at nick popemd. And
<v Speaker 3>two projects that I have at the moment, well a
<v Speaker 3>few things. Of course, I'm on the new season of
<v Speaker 3>Ancient Aliens, which is looking at not just ancient mysteries
<v Speaker 3>but increasingly following the modern development too, and I also
<v Speaker 3>moderate the live show. There's a touring live show. We've
<v Speaker 3>done I think about eighty shows over the last two
<v Speaker 3>and a half years all around the us Ancient alienslivetur
<v Speaker 3>dot com for details of that, and we're about to
<v Speaker 3>go on the spring leg of that tour. My last
<v Speaker 3>film was called Apocalypse COVID, and that's about government overreach
<v Speaker 3>during the pandemic.
<v Speaker 2>That's just come out.
<v Speaker 3>It's gotten a bit of mainstream news media coverage, but
<v Speaker 3>this is a very still a very sensitive topic, of course,
<v Speaker 3>and I have two more UAP related films coming up.
<v Speaker 3>The next one, I think is called Aliens from the Abyss,
<v Speaker 3>The Dark Side of Disclosure or something like that. We
<v Speaker 3>keep playing around with the titles somewhat, but I'll put
<v Speaker 3>all this on my x feed when it goes live. So,
<v Speaker 3>like I say, on an almost daily basis, I update
<v Speaker 3>at Nick Pope mod with my various projects. So that's
<v Speaker 3>really the place to go and to interact. I do
<v Speaker 3>try and engage in reply.
<v Speaker 1>Well, thank you again, Nick, this has been an awesome
<v Speaker 1>conversation and let's do it again soon. This was fun
<v Speaker 1>to talk about and I like that we kind of
<v Speaker 1>pushed the boundary on and talked about some things that
<v Speaker 1>I haven't really been heard get discussed in the UFO community.
<v Speaker 4>Have a great day. Thank you.