Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Ep 154 - UAP Congress Hearings, Luis Elizondo, AARO, UFO Update with Dave Smethurst
219 Plays20 days ago
Dave Smethurst returns to catch us up on a busy few months across in the USA with recent congressional hearings, senate hearings, new names coming forward, and what about those drones?!
Hear our thoughts and more in this weeks bumper episode!
================
Title music provided by Steve Yarwood and Ambienfinity
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction and Podcast Anniversary
00:00:00
Speaker
it almost intate me i don't know what to white those on or what it was it wasn't an airplane it was not in your pain it was so off You're listening to Pursuit of the Paranormal Podcast with your hosts, Ash Ellis and Greg Tomlinson.
00:00:24
Speaker
Hey Ash, how's it going? Very well, very well, Greg. Good evening. How's it? How are you doing? yeah not bad not bad um busy weekend but yeah all good and yeah loads of good episodes come out of the last few weeks so i'm really really pleased with with um all the content we've been sharing again loads of feedback people following us on social media so yeah it seems like a productive couple of weeks as we head towards the festive time which is also
00:00:58
Speaker
next week our fourth anniversary it is it is and we've doing been doing a couple tiktok lives now we probably do a tiktok live on our fourth anniversary which we'll advertise on social media ah just have a little celebration four years of pursuit of the paranormal with ashley and greg and i guess a good way to kick off the festivities with this episode and we're going to be catching back up with the front of knowledge Dave Smeverist talking about the recent UAP goings on in the States yeah looking forward to this I love speaking to Dave as always and it's been about a year since I spoke to him so I can't wait to speak to him again missed his voice
00:01:54
Speaker
Great to be back.
UAP Events and Crypto Discussion with Dave Smeverist
00:01:55
Speaker
Great to see you back, Greg. The last time we spoke was during the crypto episode. Do you remember? That was one of my favorite episodes I've ever done. I must say, I was real i really enjoyed that. So it's great to see you back. I was Frank, by the way, if you've been in Langley with Frank, since he's been away, in the CIA sort of office, you know.
00:02:16
Speaker
this
00:02:20
Speaker
I wish, no. A bit of time out, as it were, but yeah, no. All good. All good. ended Good to be back. I've seen shows recently that have been really good. I really enjoyed it. What's his name? That one of the Kinsella brothers.
00:02:35
Speaker
I suppose he thought, which one? Ronny. Ronny can you say that? Yeah, that was a really, really, he was really good. I really got a lot out of that and some of the stuff we've been talking about fully enough on that. It'd be so great. I thought it was really good. So that was a great incident. And the recent Paranormal Roundtable I thought was good as well. So anyway, yeah, so back up and running some great shows, as you say, in the can. Very good. Let's see what we can do tonight.
00:03:04
Speaker
Definitely. Make sure everyone go back and listen to those episodes. It's got the Dave seal of approval. So, uh, you know what that's worth but well i see out about and let em been a judge you that but anyway yeah ah so, uh, I dunno, do you want to say what we're going to do? I sure. Oh, do you want me to carry on in my normally name? It's a little style. Um, yeah, you can kick off. I think you probably got more explain it. than i have Well, I don't know about that, but anyway, what we're going to do, if you remember last time I was on the show, I did a roundup of where we were from David Grush testify testifying right up to when Lou Alizando's book was released. yeah So the idea that we discussed to do was to sort of catch up to where we are now and what's going on and catch everybody up and just have a bit of a chat about it really.
00:03:59
Speaker
if you remember where we left off i did the rather torturous metaphor of the star wars trilogy which was the new hope with grush giving his congressional testimony we had the uh uap disclosure act and assault conference everybody ready to go then the empire strikes back with the uh secret keepers media fight back and he gutted the ndaa act the act coming up and then we got the arrow historical report to really kick us in the release there and then it was the return of the Jedi, a bit of a backlash from the people from people who wanted disclosure. There was leaks coming out about the CIA's crash retrieval program, which was a big blow to them, and we had Lou's book coming out. So that was the, and it was supposed to be the lead of big momentum and unstoppable force towards disclosure.
Lou Elizondo's Book: Hype vs. Reality
00:04:54
Speaker
yeah So, where are we? So, ah any he points so far, gentlemen? Any observations you thought about? Well, I've listened to Lou Olesondo's book. I don't know if you guys have. he says Actually, it's really good to listen to it. It's him.
00:05:14
Speaker
yeah right yeah the audio book. So it's like a 15 hour podcast. So so that was that was quite an interesting, listen, read, whatever you want to call it. um And that that's the thing where I've been out for a little while, I've lost touch a bit. So I'm going to have a listen to what you've got. I've got my own opinions on on certain things. So yeah, it'd be good to hear your take on where we are right now.
00:05:41
Speaker
Yeah, I mean, it's interesting. I mean, yeah. Well, I'll tell you at the end, I don't spoil the story. yeah What affect but you'll see what i'm where I'm going, I suppose. So I suppose Lou's book, I sort of ended my last appearance, so i trying to guess what was going to be in his book. And it was rumored it was going to blow the bloody doors off. But I don't think he quite did that. Do you know what I mean? I think I was a little optimistic, to be honest. I thought he was going to spill more beans than he actually did.
00:06:10
Speaker
but So there's no really new revelations in it, but if people really followed Lou closely, that they wouldn't know about. He talked about implants, which he'd never taught before, and these really weird implants they pulled out of people that they saw biochemical tech and they were moving. That was really, really weird, actually. I thought that was quite good. And he was plagued by green orbs in his house. We hadn't heard that before. He dabbled in remote viewing, which we sort of suspected, but we didn't know.
00:06:39
Speaker
and he he was sort of saying he thought in the end of the book, of which I thought was quite powerful, and there was an imminent, he thought there was an imminent threat from UAPs. He wasn't saying there was something coming of I will get to that as I'm going on, but he certainly seems to say it was imminent and in true fashion he left it very ambiguous so you couldn't really, quite slippery is maybe the wrong word, but do you know what I mean? Quite he couldn't quite get the, uh, he couldn't quite get a grip on what he was saying. But when I read the book, I thought it filled quite a lot of gaps, to be honest with you. Cause if you follow, it's always been like sort of, you know, paying by numbers or filling the sort of missing links. And it gave a lot of context to what had been happening. And, uh, I thought what I, what I've learned exactly been involved in. So just to say what he did confirm.
00:07:32
Speaker
He confirmed that ASAP and A-TIP, or SAP and A-TIP, sorry, that was an interesting combination, they weren't the core programs, they were like a shadow program. Said they'd been a decades-long cover-up, some presidents had known about it. He also confirmed there were crash retrieval and reverse engineering programs, they had bodies and craft, did quite a bit on the physics.
00:07:57
Speaker
about the craft work and the individual instances and cases and he said there was a definite non human intelligence presence and we're not like out the outer species and again he went on to this imminent threat now so I thought it was and there's a lot more than that but it was pretty good so I don't think it's written for us more or we're really into the topic I think it was more but I think it would be pretty mind-blowing for any member of the general public and remember it did get on the best-selling list So I thought it sort of moved the dial, but it was not as much as I was hoping personally. So that was my take on that. Now I also, interestingly, just as a little aside, at the Space Force, at the hearing, which we're going to come onto,
00:08:44
Speaker
He actually said he'd been working at the Space Force for a bit, and he really did his NDA. And I think when he did that, that was about two years ago. I think they tightened it up a bit, along with the Doppler thing he signed when he was doing his book. So I think he's been tightened up a bit. And he said he was working with Rush, which is interesting.
00:09:01
Speaker
So I thought Lou's book was good, but it wasn't quite the this the mega break down the wall thing, but maybe some of us have thought, including myself, because on the show, I thought it was going to be a bit more. So I don't know what you guys, I don't know what were you thought about that.
00:09:18
Speaker
Yeah, yeah definitely ah so Greg definitely more geared towards the mainstream. I mean I mean I listen to at My AmbioLix podcast ah who played and Amy Farrah Fowler in Big Bang Theory. I really like her and her podcast really good and it's nothing to do with UFOs. It's a lot bit good in spirituality and stuff like that but nothing kind of paranormal.
00:09:41
Speaker
and then he was suddenly the next episode on Maya Violet's podcast talking about UFOs and stuff on his book. So he's obviously clearly done the kind of celebrity podcast rounds as well as the more UFO focused podcasts as well. So obviously there's that mainstream appeal which probably would have helped it get, even without just a UFO nuts buying it, and helped it obviously get up to there.
00:10:05
Speaker
to the charts. I've not read it myself. I've skimmed some pages. I've not. I might buy a pile of books that I'm going to read. I usually read the books of guests that are coming on. So I've got a chance to read ones. So I need to keep in touch with whom talking to coming up. So that's where all my kind of book reading goes to. But the sort of the reaction that I saw again, like you said, wasn't really anything too grand. So you've been talking about this book for quite a while.
00:10:33
Speaker
Obviously, everyone was wanting it to come out and read it and stuff, but to be kind of reaction on X and stuff wasn't ah too positive from what what I saw.
Personal Insights on Lou Elizondo's Media Impact
00:10:44
Speaker
and But I will get around to reading it, especially about the implants. like that That's something that I think is interesting that I need to so finally get around to reading it.
00:10:54
Speaker
I think um for me, yeah, as as someone, as you guys know, that I'm not as deep into UAP as you guys. so I think I can speak more for the the mainstream person. I thought it was really good. ah As I say, I listen to um the audio version on Spotify and it's 15, 16 hours long. So I go about my daily business and just listen to the podcast. more um And it felt like a 15-hour podcast interview where he was the only one speaking. But I found, in particular, like the the the bits behind the scenes for me being interested in the orbs. It was the orbs bit that really got to me in the paranormal side that he touched on around the whole skinwalker ranch when when all that was happening with Orsap and ATIP and way back when.
00:11:51
Speaker
that to say that he saw orbs in like the hallway in his house like just go for a wall that for me that was something that I think would resonate to a lot of people who were sort of on the fringe of UAP they they they like the paranormal stuff um ah think it appealed more to the mainstream like you like you both said that it wasn't groundbreaking as such but it was interesting to get his take on what happened after he left his role and went sort of public and the fact that he was having these meetings he had to go and live in a like a
00:12:33
Speaker
a Winnebago type thing, he was he was living on some land, him and his family had to sort of discuss the fact that he was having to do the right thing rather than keep keep just doing the norm, that kind of stuff and I felt that side of it.
00:12:49
Speaker
uh allowed me personally to get more of an understanding of the decisions that made led up to him going public because he could have just sat there and just sat in the background and done nothing and just and just went through the motions with he could have been the man behind david grush the man behind ryan graves the my man behind david favor or at the congressional hearings and just not not been that public face but he came out and it was interesting to get the the lead up to that and like the the fallout following him going public so i did feel that it was more of a it was a Lou Olesondo sort of explaining his reasons rather than necessarily the groundbreaking UFO stuff that i think like you both said that
00:13:39
Speaker
yeah everybody hoped it to be and it was sort of bigged up that he was going to release all this this new stuff and I know I listened to Weaponized um with George Knapp and Jeremy Corvall and whether you like Jeremy Corvall or not I think the podcast is very good but I do have a ah way of sensationalizing a lot of the stuff and I think that the book was sensationalized a lot yeah And it didn't quite quite hit that mark for me, but I really
Future UAP Events and Rumors for 2027
00:14:08
Speaker
enjoyed it. I really enjoyed it No, so did I and I i thought Luke come out of it very well. It's very admirable. i We didn't change on the launch I don't know I said Oh, I'm sorry. You've got no job. and Yeah I might quite told someone so I might said that's all right
00:14:25
Speaker
lou ollazundo' is quite a big guy ah for him either so i'm going the most six way and anyway know that boy i ah i give you very but but you are right yeah and i've enjoyed this sort of napsspo i do i do find i carbe a little bit He can be a bit irritating sometimes, but he feels like he's found Bill and Ted's excellent adventure, don't he? You know what I mean? But he is you can't he's great on the media and he has done a good job. So, ah you know, um anyway, so
00:14:56
Speaker
Just to quickly carry on, I think the reaction to Lou's book was really good. He did a good media round. You know what? if I know X was a bit iffy, but I thought he'd come back on X after a bit. But he did a brilliant media round with a load of mainstream shows, American morning shows, CNN, Jon Stewart. I thought he got a really good cut through on that. He went on the best seller list for quite a few weeks. And I know he only went so far enough further, but wanted to kill a bloke.
00:15:25
Speaker
to finish on that I think it's very easy to underestimate the impact it had on the public and so I thought it put it on the map and sort of and this is probably what this is about what we talk about now how far are we as it put it on the map and is that enough to get us over the line I suppose there's a couple of other things happened as well just because even though it's not been that long there's been quite a few things have happened in this sort of period after lose because it's sort of ramping up And some have been a bit hit and missed. There's one thing we map forward who does the Good Trouble podcast, it's very good. It's got quite a large warrant Washington audience. And basically, he mentioned about, there's a few things he mentioned, but he mentioned about Peds, which is Presidential Emergency Action Directives. And these are issued by the president to deal with like catastrophic, you know, air that what's the word, existential crises like nuclear war or massive, terrible catastrophic events.
00:16:24
Speaker
but they are covered, very they covered, they're covered by lots of secrecy and they're exempt from congressional oversight and you can have special access pro projects but under the president so nobody can see him and also the secrecy is linked in some ways to the nuclear secrecy where the president on his own can't make the decision to unclassify, you've got to do it in a panel. The point he was making was we've all thought they were hidden in these executive orders done by Eisenhower or Truman and Eisenhower in order and everybody's wondering how can that work because they expire after the president goes but actually Matt says they're hidden here in this bit and it's hidden in because it's kept secret because nobody wants to know you know they might have to shoot after the population or whatever they're going to do
Skepticism on James Webb Telescope Rumors
00:17:13
Speaker
only 30% can live or whatever the plan is it's kept secret
00:17:18
Speaker
and so that's how they've got round so it may well be some of this stuff is legal and it's hidden so i thought that was an absolutely fascinating revelation and what matt forward's been doing is stepping up the pressure on the secret keepers he keeps saying his show the day's gonna come for you you better come and clean now and it's been quite an effective campaign so there was that uh Then we had something quite interesting to change and see what you guys think about this. There's this something coming vibe that started off. Now it's been around for a few, well, well for at least a couple of years. It's sort of, and it's rumors of some sort of event coming in 2027. Now it's been rumored around 2033, maybe time, but it started with John Ramirez, he mentioned it.
00:18:12
Speaker
I think it was in early 2023 or late 2022, something like that. But other people have alluded to it as well. Bigelow, remote views, if you will think. And it's not clear if it's a kind of cyclismic event or it's some sort of event where the NHI reveal themselves or do something. But it's something. But whatever it is, it seems to be very significant or game changing. Now, I'm not saying I believe in this. I'll come to what I think about it in
Conspiracies and Personalities in UAP Discourse
00:18:40
Speaker
a minute. I'll tell you what I think about it in a minute. but There's also a rumor emerged recently from that professor, whatever his name is, with a big beard, Professor Simon Clark. He said, oh, whatever his name it doesn't matter. But he's not a professor, for the start. But anyway, but he said, and I heard these other rumors from the American people as well, our American sort of commentators. But there's a rumor that the James Webb telescope was picked up in 10 light years away. It was absolutely massive coming towards us. It's intelligently controlled, which is
00:19:13
Speaker
which is quite interesting as well, and obviously that sparked a lot of discussion. Now I've always thought, just as a way, I thought there's maybe something serious, this because there's too many people saying there's something to it, you know, for it not to be something there, but What I'm coming to you, Lou was interviewed on this Matt ma Show, Good Trouble Show, Matt Ford Show. And he said, what was this quote? I think I've written it down somewhere. He said, he had heard people talking about that and what, you know, I've briefed things on it, but it was not his tale to tell, not particularly this big object, but something coming, some events. So to me, that gave it a bit more substance.
00:19:57
Speaker
You know, because that's sort of, I don't know how much it gives it quite a bit more substance to me because why would he say something like that? I mean, I don't think there's a big ship travelling at sub light speed because the NHTI tech from what's been observed, it can travel instantaneously. It doesn't seem to matter the size. I mean, unless it's planet size or something, I don't know. But yeah, it's.
00:20:19
Speaker
seems pretty, it's just it so that is also been coming around a size but Lou didn't say you think you say oh I don't know about that and just this dismiss it but if you think about it that if there is something coming that might be an underlying driver for disclosure or the move towards disclosure from some factions in the intelligence community and all the rest of it like Lou so that's just I don't know if you heard about that I mean there's not very further we can much further we can take it but Lou saying that um no I thought was give it a bit more substance to me than what you thought about that.
UAP Legislation Challenges
00:20:55
Speaker
um i mean i guess um i mean the yeah i mean you see quite a lot quite a lot of people talking about this so i've been covering the next couple of years and different dates banded around it's reminds me sometimes a little bit of the whole train chirping might as well do what uh 2012 oh yeah yeah all that stuff um also project bluebeam you see all that popping up everywhere on social media time to time you see a video of ufo or whatever an object it's like oh project blue beam which disposed it's fake invasion that is supposed to be coming in the in the next couple years yous in so hate yeah one yeah yeah yeah yes we we we think it's aliens but it's actually the government tending to be aliens um i didn't know louis ando were kind of alluded to it um but i can say lesson don't we know where he's getting that from
00:21:50
Speaker
and He goes on a lot of podcasts and stuff as he maybe kind of discussed it a little bit with different people. So he's kind of got it in his head. No, the implication of what he said was he'd been told by people who who would know. So I don't think he would have been from that route. I mean, he might be, but the the way he was talking, he'd heard about it from, you know, the sort of people he sort of talks to in his profession, as he were. so Fair, fair. And the objects from the telescope, I mean, for me, how I understand how that telescope works is
00:22:27
Speaker
it's looking at such a tiny tiny part of the sky that fit to spot kind of even a planet size object would be near impossible and because obviously focusing on and even when were it's looking at like his main job is looking at stars and seeing planets passing in front of the stars and stuff to get orbits and sides of planets and all this type of stuff a lot of this beyond me but from my know of it and which could be wrong, is like, try to spot something that's kind of heading towards us or to be even that size would be that infinitely small chance of seeing something like that is, I don't know, i'll kind of might find that hard to believe. Let's just, let's just see some official out there that I've not seen, but for me, I don't understand how they could see something like that, like that size coming towards us.
00:23:19
Speaker
um And to also say that it's possibly like technological rather than being like a meteorite or a comet or anything like that.
00:23:31
Speaker
I think I'm... No, I was gonna say it does feel that when you hear these kind of things that it's whoever's in the public eye's way of keeping some um momentum on their word so like you get someone said like Lou it would tease bits uh every available opportunity and every few months it'd be a little bit more a little bit more a little bit more and it keeps them on that kind of circuit as it were so i do feel sometimes that when things are said unless they're in those congressional hearings or whatever it does feel that some of the guests that go on podcast or
00:24:18
Speaker
do the rounds that they say just enough to keep the interest going in that subject for a little bit longer so to say something's coming in 2027 and to say I've spoken to people in the know kind of means that for the next couple of years you can you can tease that on the circuit and get, ah maybe that's just cynical me, maybe I'm turning into you Ash, what's going on? but um yeah he didn't bring it He's not been going on about listening, he had to be able to sort of drag it out of him and he wasn't that, not when he was saying it, but ah you might be writing a broader context, certainly yeah it's a grifters paradise isn't it, that sort of story, I do totally agree with you there Greg.
00:25:04
Speaker
Anyway, I suppose there's not much, but I thought, a just the way it's come about, I just think it's interesting and there's been, as I say, some remote viewing stuff's come out about it, big oars come out about it. There's a story about Leslie King being told something at one of them New York conference events saying, yeah, it's going to be pretty bad. And if you remember, she said in an interview,
00:25:23
Speaker
well I think it's going to be pretty bad in the next so few years and they asked her what she meant and she thought oh I've said a bit much here so it's interesting I normally dismiss this stuff out of hand like you Ash you know like 2012 I've heard it all my life since growing up oh yeah it's something coming but I think it's just got a bit of a weird feel
Drone Activities and National Security
00:25:44
Speaker
to it. this But anyway, we'll leave that in the air for the listeners to ponder on. But yeah, the other thing is, of course, there's that many, I don't think they use an impolite, so many people who like to sort of fabricate and maybe and um embellish things, but it's very hard to know what is and isn't true. and Because that James Webb thing does sound a bit like that, because the thing is, partly Congress have been briefed on it, so who knows about that.
00:26:09
Speaker
but yeah Anyway, so just interesting, but that's coming along in the background. The next tangible thing that happened was the UAP legislation. If you remember, they're going to try and bring the UAP disclosure act in again this year. That was one of the big, one of these milestones for this momentum. And in Congress, it was dropped pretty quickly. I think it had been dropped before with the last interview actually, Ash.
00:26:36
Speaker
but also the Air Safety Act that Ryan Graves had done where pipe making it easy for pilots to report and the FAA in America reporting that had gone. So our hopes were on the Senate, you know, to get the UAPDA there and people were pretty confident, but it got strangled in the same way in the reconciliation bit at the start they're doing and they decide what bills are going in. Just got done in there.
00:27:01
Speaker
And it was a sort of usual congressional and sort of Senate House representatives and their staffers who seem to have been instrumental in doing that. It's not quite clear who's done it. There was a lot of finger pointing.
00:27:13
Speaker
But that did get squashed early, and one might say last year, if you remember, they weren't expecting that act. It emerged after Gushi's testimony. Well, this year it seems they were waiting for it and did it in early on. I mean, ah a few people were there and said, oh, well, it was just technical and funding, but I for one think that it's too convenient now.
00:27:33
Speaker
But there may be a bit of life left yet, which we'll come to later on in it. But so that was a real blow that actually got dropped. So that was the next thing that happened. I just want to go on quickly to the Langley stuff, then we'll maybe see what you guys think where we are so far. You may remember there been ah there's been a resurgence in reports of the Langley stuff recently. You might remember originally around December, b Langley Air Force Base in America had 17 days of drone activity.
00:28:03
Speaker
They had to suspend flights. They had to move fire groups. They couldn't stop the drones. They couldn't seem to bring them down. The behaviour was very weird. There was a lot of drones. The report is unconventional. There was some video evidence. Liberation Times anyway got a report of a near miss in 2024 later on. So things are still going on.
00:28:24
Speaker
And there was further reports of stuff going on here around Edward Air Force Base, a few other facilities and some nuclear facilities. So clearly there was a lot of activity, two of them from the DOE. And they also obtained 22 witness statements from a Freedom of Information request. I think a fellow called Kyle Woffel, I think got that. And the security teams were all talking about them. quite unconventional objects, they couldn't get him down, they couldn't pick them up and reduce you or what they were and there was two accounts in there, one that said they sounded like flying lawn mowers and another of this mysterious guy who had this van and they sounded like really planted accounts you know in the midst of all these other accounts because they were sort of didn't sort of fit with it so it was interesting now whether
00:29:11
Speaker
was trying to be a bit of a tale published because the, I think it was the Washington Post or it might have been, yeah I think it was the Washington Post, they published this big story about how it was all drones and this kind of, we didn't have much basis in fact. So anyway, that kicked off another load of discussions about the rise in UAV and if you think about it, I mean it could be foreign intelligence I suppose,
00:29:35
Speaker
ah but there's not been any good answers to their DLD and explaining why they can't bring them down, why they persist. I think they'd be able to do something about them and I would say it's worth noting and this might come on to the discussion we'll have later about what's happened in Britain. Langley has a lot of stealth bombers and they're nuclear capable and it's a big naval armaments and resupply ah infrastructure around them.
00:30:00
Speaker
and obviously you've got to assume they're handling nuclear weapons there because the ships carry that and a lot of the other stuff. So it makes you wonder if with the Ukraine stuff going on whether the US has been moving nukes around that area and in response as I say to the Ukraine stuff and whether the UAP were monitoring this and sending them a bit of a message because it's pretty brazen what they were doing.
00:30:24
Speaker
So I think that's very, very interesting that, but the point about this was it raised its head again at this drone stop, but it had been wider than people thought. So that was another interesting factor. So I don't know if you've got any thoughts on that. is Yeah, it's interesting because I i read the news like throughout the day and um last week there was some reports and I've just googled it while we why we've been talking about this.
00:30:54
Speaker
and it says around 60 british troops including counter drone specialists have been deployed to help defend three air bases used by the us air force in the uk after a spate of and then it says weird drone sightings um The military personnel will also support efforts to find out who is operating the aerial vehicles amid fears the mysterious sorties might be part of some coordinated operation. It's over overnight over RAF Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Feltwell in Norfolk and I just found what you just said there that just took me straight to that
00:31:34
Speaker
that particular story um and it seems to have been updated that they've now deployed forces to try and understand what these and it says weird drone activity so like you say and that that's probably over these US bases that are shifting tech of some kind um but is it adversarial tech or Adversarial tech monitoring the airbases or is it because they're saying weird, is it something different? Because you'd think that some drone activity by adversaries wouldn't be able to be up for too long without being noticed.
00:32:17
Speaker
And I think that's the thus the key. um And I know that came out when Dave Fravor was talking over the last few weeks. He was saying that people were saying it was helicopters or it was drone technology from adversaries. There's no chance. You can't get out that far without refueling and all sorts. So where it run highly, it said a defense source said about the drone activity, it's odd, very weird. And that the number fluctuated or varied between the bases over the night. And since November the 20th, there has been no impact to residents or infrastructure. However, they are still continuously being monitored to ensure the safety and security of the installations. So something's happening.
00:33:06
Speaker
that some people need to know, like want to know about, but who are those people that want to know about it? Is it adversarial tech or is it something else? Yeah, I mean, this drones thing, it's weird. And it's been happening today, as we record in drones over the bases again, ah today. And it's a weird one, because they are drones, fixed wing drones and quadcopters. They have said it is like drones as we we would know him like UAVs and stuff so it's that kind of it's been doing the rounds on the UFO groups and stuff like that on social media, a lot of UFO pages are picking it up as stories and which I do kind of get and like the ones in America and americaka Langley over last year obviously a lot of similarities with that they don't know who's operating them that's the main sort of mystery is who's operating them I've seen a lot of people saying
00:34:01
Speaker
and then they're not able to shoot them down and sort of interpreting that as they can't shoot them down, whereas it's more they're not allowed to shoot them down, less drxypoles in a fret to to the base, whatever, they can't shoot them down, so that's why it's kind of them monitoring it, rather than actually shooting it, like to actually blow it up or whatever, they all bring it down. So I think a lot of people kind of reading it as these strange drones, they're going over the air bases, they're can't shoot downers and they're not physically able to for some magical reason like some weird reasons if they're not kind of normal drones but I think they are kind of drones as we know drones to be like say quadcopters and fixed-wing drones
00:34:43
Speaker
yeah But the mystery is, this prolonged kind of over the bases, what do they want? Who is it? Is it some kind of inside adversary that's in the country that is running these? Is it Anonymous? Is it like something like that that's doing it? Is it some unknown group? Is it Elon Musk and John Paul, whatever his name is, Logan? Doing some Instagram thing, it's got to be a Mr. Beast video. in Did you say John john Paul? I can't remember what the names are. Just hang on a minute, Ash. How are you doing this by psychic power that you know that they're drones? Because that's not what I've read in the accounts. I was reading it earlier. It has a full statement that says the small, of different sizes, odd configurations. They've been flying at five and a half thousand feet. The American accounts are all very strange and a lot of people have doubted what they are. So there's nothing definitive to say that they're, and they've been flying in high winds for five days.
00:35:42
Speaker
in a very state, so unless you read somewhere, but I haven't. I've read it somewhere, let me see if I can find it while we're recording this episode, Bill. See, it was only today I was reading it, that's why I was like, yeah, that's why it's in my head, kind of this, this. And that thing about, yeah, that was interesting when that was emerged, when they couldn't use any of the tech, because it was in a civilian area, that was doubted as well in America anyway. So there's been quite a lot of controversy around it.
00:36:13
Speaker
It's definitely weird. and yeah I know but but weird as in ah don't think it's the accounts for what I've read. There's been American Air Force statements. The British military hasn't commented on it. There's been a lot of silence in the US Air Force. I've got a quote here. It says, Alan, there might be another one.
00:36:33
Speaker
uh where does it say and they scrambled jets that's the whole thing they scrambled jets to try and intercept them which seems a little bit odd if they just drones no helicopters another another plane's been up today um kind of circling around and stuff like that there was jet set there was f-15s without scrambled that was a report so there was f-15s out which seems a bit weird if they drones uh here we go he said Small manned aerial vehicles of various sizes were spotted over in the vicinity of these air bases of different sizes and combinations. I mean, I think if they were they were definite drones, none of them were said, unless you've seen something I haven't. and trying to find The fixed wing things, that was one of them two quotes I was talking about in America. I know you're not weren't referring to that. But that's why I said they were of these two things. There was one that said, oh, yes, it's a fixed wing drone.
00:37:32
Speaker
amidst all these other reports of security guards who said, oh, we couldn't get them on track and they looked a bit odd. So I don't know whether the jury's still out on that, but you might, you may well be right, Ash, of course. Uh, but, uh, five days, troops, 60 troops didn't know the plot, because you would think, wouldn't you?
00:37:52
Speaker
But in that, it's quite isolated around there on that basis. You'd think they'd be able to stop it going on. You'd think the countermeasures, which are well tried and trusted, they'd be able to jam the bleeding things, wouldn't you? And as I said, they're flying pretty high in the air. There's bloody high winds going, which most drones can't seem to handle. It just all seems a little bit odd.
00:38:14
Speaker
Anyway, what you may well have, as I say, Ash, your investigative skills may have pulled out something we've not seen. And I do take your point. It is, statistically, or probability-wise, it's more likely foreign adversary than it is anything else, because that would stand to reason it. I mean, Chris Sharp, who's been reported on it, has been saying his gut tells him it's, you know, drones, but they just don't seem to be like normal conventional ones. And the operating parameters seem to be very long indeed ah and I think there's quite a few echoes to what'sapp what was happening in Langley strangely enough but they can't knock them down and all the rest of it and to come up with a point I was going to make a bit later on but I might as well make it now is there could be a nuclear connection again because those planes they've got F-15s and they've got another one I forget what it's called and they all of them can do cruise missiles and one of them can do these tactical nukes
00:39:11
Speaker
Now, if you think about Putin just launched one of those ah ballistic, what they call intercontinental ballistic missiles, the medium range ones are the multiple warheads. There may have been a response to that and they deployed some of that tactical nuclear stuff in Britain where the play planes are, because that's where they go from. So you do wonder if If there's a presence of UAE pre-presence near there, I mean, again, it might not be that, but in terms of what seems to get him going, what seems to get him going is the presence of nuclear weapons possibly near where they are. And interestingly enough, there that there was an incident at Lake Inif in 1956. I think Billy had it on his show again recently. Billy Adams, you know, what was it, disclosure team.
00:39:55
Speaker
And the case, the thing flew from the North Sea, apparently, and there's a few the few of these objects buzzed like an eph, again, with a nuclear connection they were having the bombers landing.
00:40:07
Speaker
the American nuclear bombs and it was trapped from the North Sea and there's been persistent rumors over decades of a base being in the middle of the North Sea on the east coast of the UK. So very interesting echoes of that. So I think it's ah it's a bit weird but again it's I think this whole drone thing is very seems to be very odd and the reactions like you were saying Greg of some of the military people saying it's really weird because they've been shooting drones down for ages you know and knocking them out of the sky did the technologies tried and tested so
00:40:41
Speaker
ah I do think it's, I think it's weird,
Documentaries and Public Understanding of UAPs
00:40:46
Speaker
is what I think. I mean, I'm not saying I'm right, by the way, Ash, and I know you've got a lot of on the ground experience. So, you know, so far, he's definitely odd.
00:40:56
Speaker
I'm just trying to think where I was reading, and you might have been thinking about it now, it was earlier on, someone who's actually nearby that had actually gone yeah car saw them and they've said it it was like cod copters and stuff. And the Russian thing's interesting, it's like they say, we kind of potentially started obviously splining more weapons and stuff to Ukraine, so it could be Putin just saying like, yeah, I am here. This is just a little teaser of what I can do.
00:41:24
Speaker
because he has obviously threatened us. If we get involved it could be that kind of on the on that side of it as well. yeah but That would definitely make sense what if they were doing that. That bloke that spoke to him, he it wasn't called a Tarquin was he and they spoke with a very posh London accent. A nice badge fell out of his pocket as he was talking to him. No, no I was reading it, it was words I was reading. No, no, no that's right because he said,
00:41:49
Speaker
yeah I say, Roger, do go out there and tell those appalling press people that it's just a bloody drone. Remember, think swing. Oh yes. Handheld. There's a good fellow.
00:42:05
Speaker
That's terrible, isn't it? Yeah, but that, I reckon it might have been, Ash, more seriously. There's quite a lot of plain spotting, you know, people round there, so they might, well, I've seen something, so they'd be a good source. They've knocked all the stuff off their website, interestingly, you know.
00:42:20
Speaker
all those local plane spots and I suspect if it is a bit weird or even if it isn't the Air Force people have said you better not call that off your website if you want to keep looking at planes around there and I think that might have been because it's all gone off the reports Uh, so, but again, it'd be interesting to see and it, I think Occam's razor, it's more likely to be adversary stuff, but it's just a behavior. It's so unusual. You know what I mean? And that's for me, the big thing anyway.
00:42:50
Speaker
yeah
00:42:53
Speaker
So we, uh, draw a veil over that then in, uh, in, uh, that mystery, a true mystery and go, go to the next stuff. Yeah, that's a quick drawing. I've got a list as long as they are, mate. We won't be that bad. The next one was, if you remember, the next part of this puzzle, what apart from the legislation, was documentaries being launched. There's a couple to come, but the two have come out. One from MGM called Beyond by JJ Abrahams.
00:43:18
Speaker
Now you may remember he did one a couple of years ago, or 80 months, which started off alright, then went a bit rubbish really, and you know, followed some of the old, so, Trump's about, debunking Trump's really, but this, I watched it, it's really good. I don't think you can get it in, somebody sent it to me anyway, but it was really good, I thought, good nuts and bolts brought you right up to speed and even started talking about some of the consciousness stuff.
00:43:42
Speaker
on other stuff as well. So I think a lot of the public, again, good impact, would have moved the dial, good mainstream stuff, and wasn't patronizing. So that was good. And I don't know if you've seen it as a George Knapp has done a recent thing. I think it's called Alien Investigations. That's a six-parter. And he's talking about the Polaris, the incidents when people were attacked in Mexico, looking at USOs, the agua-dealo one, which I'm going to come to in a minute, the one important No, yeah, Puerto Rico was flying about, but Arrow claimed to have debunked, which I'm going to talk about that shortly. And a few other things, talked about whistle blows, and he was sort of asking the question, what are they up to? So I thought that was pretty good as well. before I thought it peed out a little bit near the end.
00:44:30
Speaker
Because he was asking the question, in it the sort of question, how would he write his own historical report? And that sort of the narrative sort of fragmented. But that's me sounding like I'm a film critic here, doesn't it? But the point is, it was good. And again, this Netflix got millions of views, millions of views on Netflix. Again, a good ah good dial mover.
00:44:55
Speaker
I think if you've seen any of those, you might not have had a chance to see them. That won't be on. I'm not sure if we can see it in the UK. I was just lucky somebody sent it to me. I won't say you, so I'm getting in trouble. No, I watched the New York Adduction one or the Manhattan Adduction. Yeah, that's supposed to be rubbish now. Although a lost let' lost in just I halfway through the second episode.
00:45:15
Speaker
When I first started watching it, Peter Robbins popped up and a massive fan of Peter Robbins was like, oh, Pete, isn't it? And then second episode literally turned out, I was like, I can't even watch this anymore. And then I saw all the fallout on Facebook about suing him, Peter and that suing him. It wasn't the story that they signed up to tell, basically. That's what happens though, don't you? You haven't got as much control. Even George Knapp didn't have talk. That Netflix thing was all right, it was good. But listening to him, he was talking on Andy's podcast and he said he didn't have They had to share the editorial control. So that must be terrible. That one you did to take the story off you and they mess it about and sensationalize
Immaculate Constellation Report and Its Backlash
00:45:51
Speaker
it. And that, cause that's, I've not watched that because I've heard the reviews have been that bad about me. Yeah. And from what you've said, I won't be watching it now. And you said that. I wouldn't bother. Yeah. No, no, exactly. I mean, yeah, exactly. Uh, have you seen any of them, Greg?
00:46:08
Speaker
So i um I've started to watch the first episode of George Knapp's one on Netflix, but of only... briefly got into the start of it, where he was starting on the phone with some guy in the middle of it. But yeah, it is something I definitely, I like George Knapp. I've always liked George Knapp. And I do respect, even though he's weaponized with Jeremy Corbell, I do like George Knapp's take on stuff and his books are brilliant. So I will invest the time. It's just the time.
00:46:43
Speaker
its worth what It's worth watching anyway, I think it is anyway. I've been looking forward to to watching it for definite. The part is, they're both good. They're both big down moves and got good audiences, but they're not, you know, we're looking for this knockout or whatever, something that really changes the game. They're not that even, but that's fine. They weren't expected to be. They'll come on to a couple of others we haven't seen yet, but maybe a bit better. Now, so we're moving now. If you remember, we started at the Lewis book and we get into the hearings.
00:47:13
Speaker
that were coming up. The next big thing that happened just before the hearings was Michael Shellenberger, who you may have noticed, a US journalist famous for his anti-government journalism on various topics, but he is a very well respected journalist in terms of his sources and reporting. He wrote an article about something called Immaculate Constellation, which came out when you probably heard about this, I'm sure.
00:47:38
Speaker
and basically a whistleblower came to me with a confidential 29 page report he'd done for congress the year before and submitted which was summing up his knowledge of what all these programs are doing and basically i just worth going through this in a little bit of detail he said immaculate constellation it was a special access program an acknowledged special access program which is one they would deny if asked about it and the DOD and it's focused on it's the main thing on the investigation retrieval and reverse engineering of UAP and it's operated without any congressional oversight and Now a big part of this is there's a big massive UFO encounters database that's got detailed accounts of the UAP pictures, high quality photographs, videos, infrared stuff
00:48:30
Speaker
the whole nine yards because it's a special access problem. It's kept under lock and key and most of the OD people don't know about it and they can't access it. But the point is all this stuff they say doesn't exist, actually it does exist and they've got it all in a big bloody fire. That is what the allegation is anyway.
00:48:49
Speaker
ah It also details some quite a load of specific encounters. There's one, a massive spherical object come over a big name naval aircraft carrier. did so They lost a bit of time to the crew on that on the ship. There's another one which you might have heard of where they said, I think it was an F-15, one of the most maneuverable ones, I can't remember which one it was. The orbs surrounded it and moved it out of this particular area. So they all formed around it and virtually escorted it out.
00:49:17
Speaker
And there's a couple around that. There's also, and this is quite controversial, it alleges that the US government might have mastered anti-grav technology. Now, as you both know, this is massively controversial in the UAP field. Some people think they have, some people think they haven't, and they call alien reproduction vehicles. Now, Stephen Gray has said that they have those, just because he said it done, he'd say it's not true, by the way.
00:49:43
Speaker
And a fella called Mark McCamlish famously told the story of one of his mates went to Sodom at this Sodom secret military shop. I've always given a lot of credibility to that and that story, even though I don't know, but I've always thought of something to it, but I've never really been able to commit to it because I know it's... But anyway, the point about this is it said they did have this technology and some of these things they actually reported on. Some of the videos were of alien reproduction vehicles that weren't new US's and were appearing.
00:50:13
Speaker
which implies, get hi to my mind, that another adversary nation is gone, or somebody else, because if we didn't know who they were, then they'd be UAPs, what do you say, I mean, they'd be non-known, safe tech. So that was really interesting, and that I think has been possibly what's put down about this story the reliability of this story in people's minds personally for me that's fine but it is a big thing all the whistle blows were extremely worried about the safety obviously and the other big thing about it it was an umbrella program for all these other sub programs you know that were around you know dealing with different elements of the legacy thing propulsion flight weapons all these things
00:51:01
Speaker
and they all had related names around constellations, like a riot, or this, that and the other. And just for your memory, you may or may not remember this, there was a program, what was it called? The Zodiac program, they call it. They called it, oh, it was Aquarius, I think it was the Zodiac program. And all the programs were named off the different sides of the Zodiac, and that was in the sort of 80s and early 90s, that was rumored to exist.
00:51:28
Speaker
And so that's an interesting connection, the idea of a constellation and then this older name for it. You do wonder if there are faced enough to just have changed the name but kept the idea because they thought they'd never get caught. But yeah, it was a bit very Scheleberg and backed up the information with a lot of multiple first and second down sources, insider sources.
00:51:54
Speaker
And it did cause a big storm, and it was over whistleblower, or anonymous of course, about our crash retrieval and reverse engineering projects and all the rest of it.
00:52:06
Speaker
As usual, the DOD denied it with its usual weasel words of, there is no problem of that name currently, which could mean they just changed it, or the social access program, they didn't quite say the right name. but There's a lot of the usual cobblers, which would allow them to say, they told the technical truth, but not actually, but, you know, a not told the real business. So yeah, so I don't know if you had any thoughts about that one.
00:52:33
Speaker
ah and at all if it yes pass your radar Yes, I do. So Immaculate Constellation was a name that I'd heard on various podcasts um during my time away, as it were. um Now, there is it's interesting because it's something that has peaked my interest because it's quite a weird sort of phrase immaculate constellation based around like immaculate conception that type of thing so it's something that that's the kind of thing that piques my interest so interestingly when you go on to the internet of where everything is obviously true but
00:53:16
Speaker
There's a story that says that the term immaculate constellation is rarely searched for on Google. Almost never. Of course, searches for it skyrocketed today, so just some time ago. But there was one other time it was displayed a large blip. In June, 2023, just as the modern UAP crash retrieval story broke, Grush went public and hearings were planned. And on between June the 18th and the 24th,
00:53:46
Speaker
the term Immaculate Constellation was massively searched for on Google. Now is that because everybody started panicking and started Googling to see if you could find it anywhere on the internet?
00:54:01
Speaker
There's another slight detail to that as well. It was round that Wright-Patterson Air Force base, but all the searches were done, Greg. You probably remember that. Yes, yes, it was, yeah. pretty at the ah So the Marthok Christ Brush is testifying quick, as he mentioned, the Immaculate Constellation. Yes, yes.
00:54:23
Speaker
Also, I've got no validity to this, um that Google changed the results of the search, removing all history of any searches of this term in 2023.
00:54:38
Speaker
where however i've got no I've got no proof that that's happened. um But a story come out as well, but it was some sort of there's an album that had that name as the six track on it, Immaculate Constellation. And that's what everybody was searching for. you Anyway, yeah. So that is interesting, isn't it? Yeah. Ash, have you got any yeah any thoughts there, mate?
00:55:01
Speaker
ah No idea of the stuff that Greg was talking about. I think we briefly mentioned it a couple weeks ago.
Congressional Hearings on UAPs: Secrecy vs. Disclosure
00:55:08
Speaker
But yeah, no, I mean, it's another one where, I mean, we'd probably go on to Schoenberger when we talk about the hearings. But yeah, no one offered to add. No, they'd gone, what, you said?
00:55:19
Speaker
Yeah, he's a bit, if you remember, Schellingburger, he's a bit, up he's ah he does follow, he's a real sort of anti-government or whatever, freedom or whatever he is, and he's on the right anyway, which is no problem, but he's going for, you know, freedom of yeah expression. He tends to attack the government quite a bit, but he is a bit straight-laced as a journalist, and when he broke the last story, last year, which he remembers about a reverse engineering program, that was just prior to the brush,
00:55:46
Speaker
He went a bit, he then said, oh, I'll have to see if it's social hysteria, and which is absolute cobbleless for me. But anyway, he looked at me quite seriously for three or four months. And I remember thinking, who's this bloke doing that? But anyway, he come back to me again when he saw his soul. I think he's pretty yeah I think he's he's not a UAP person anyway, if you see what I mean. You know, who's got a vested interest in going. But as I say, we don't know, with that alien reproduction vehicle thing, that may be, we're not sure about that. But anyway, it's an interesting one. So with a little drum roll now, we've without now come on to the congressional committee hearing. Don't worry, we're not we're not that far off the end now here.
00:56:31
Speaker
my I say that all the time. why you know for anyway else's not But ah we had the much anticipated congressional oversight committee here. That was in in the House of Representatives. We have Nancy Mays chairing it. Anyway, these were really anticipated big event in the move to disclosure. One I mentioned, you know, was kind of a pivotal thing in the last thing. Loads of hype about it. Jeremy, what's his name?
00:57:02
Speaker
Carbell was talking it up massively. A lot of other people were talking it up. The names of witnesses were kept secrets who avoid them being nobbled as happened last time by the guardians of the secrecy. And there was a rumours whistle blowers might testify. Anyway, when the list of people testified come out, people were quite disappointed because all the names were known. I'll go into who was testifying in a minute.
00:57:28
Speaker
in a second, I should say, because and people were wondering, well, what are these people? They're very interested, but what are the new things they're going to bring to the table? Now, the rumor is there was intense pressure from the DOD intelligence community.
00:57:43
Speaker
via the congressional staffers, who apparently are partly playing a big role in this, who work for the people who've also done, squashed the act and done other things, you know, around the hearings and all the rest of it. These people have obviously got connections with the IC, and they persuaded the organizers not to have the whistleblower witnesses. Apparently, these are all hearsay, sorry, I'm saying as if it's absolutely true. Don't discuss certain things too much about crash retrieval,
00:58:12
Speaker
And as I say, they were linked to a novel in the UAP, the A before the disclosure act. So you don't know what's going on. I think there's quite a bit going on just before that, because they were all talking with a load of certainty that it was going to be big. And it wasn't quite as big as we thought. Now, the people who testified were Michael Schellenberger, and people thought that actually the whistleblower might have done that originally. Lou Elizondo, we know Lou. Tim Gallaudet, who's the retired US Admiral, and this fellow called Michael Gold who was an ex NASA person, which I nearly killed when I heard that because you know my thoughts on the NASA UAP inquiry and all the rest of it. ah But the interesting thing about him, he worked for Robert Bigelow around the time of the RSAP, you know the RSAP program and the rumor was that Lockheed were going to give
00:59:03
Speaker
Bigelow, a UAP to look at, because they were going to do his special access project for Bigelow, and it was blocked at the last minute by, guess who? Glenn Gaffney. Yeah, good old Glenn. His name's going to go up against him. He's the head of the CIA Office of Science and Technology. So default, that he might spill the beans on that. I didn't think that, but anyway, let's see. So I've said all that. Oh yeah, and Matt Ford did a short podcast.
00:59:33
Speaker
just before, from Butchamal, about two or three hours before I was working in London that day and I had an evening meeting so I was in this place I'd sort of rented and watched this come up on the thing because I was following it and I had to go to this meeting just as the thing started and basically he, what he alleged, Matt Fordon, he said this last year but he put some meat on the bones this time, but Kirk Patrick at Arrow had settled this secret oversight can committee to direct what Arrow was looking at and it was all made up of legacy program managers. Can you imagine that? The people running the cover up that are all supposed to be investigating were actually directing them. Anyway, he's got names, he says, of all the people on it, but he named Glenn Gaffney as being the head, the chair of this oversight group. Isn't that interesting? The former head of the CIA, foreign weapons, technology, whatever division, whatever, who's doing all this,
01:00:30
Speaker
crashes. He's everywhere Glenn. He's like a sweeper. um you closer confidence what mid failed But anyway, so that was, that was probably the biggest revelation of the day without spoiling the story. But anyway, so you've got, I don't know, minutes before the hearing, Jeremy Carbell submitted a 12 page soft copy, which I presume is the unclassified version of this Immaculate Constellation report to the Congress people. So they were busy reading it.
01:01:00
Speaker
uh you know you know they were busy reading it just before so that was all very interesting yeah so anyway during it and i'll try and be brief here because you put nancy mays chair there i thought she was really good she was really directing a question in uh and she did say they'd be pressured not to ask detailed questions about crash retrieval programs and she shouldn't mention immaculate constellations she'd get in trouble But anyway, what came out of it was this in a nutshell trial at Lew. He basically confirmed in response to a series of short, direct questions the exist existence of UAPs and not made by any known human civilization, a foreign adversary. They monitored regularly around sensitive military nuclear installations and NHI intelligence would be behind the craft. That was the first big thing he said. It's more or less what's in his book to be honest with you.
01:01:51
Speaker
He said the US government had a crash retrieval programs and the US were in possession of an HA tech craft and bodies and also there was a secretive arms race between the US and adversary nations. yeah And he also said there was the involvement of major private sector defence contractors. Ben said there had been a massive cover up to mislead the public and congress and massive threats to witnesses and he basically called for transparency. So that's While that isn't new to us, that is pretty big to say, again to a big audience, to the congressional people, and I'll come on to their reaction in a minute. Schellenberger basically repeated what he said in the article and called for, said he had multiple sources, called for transparency. Tim Gallaudet, and I grow, well I didn't grow him because I liked him, he's a good person, but I thought he was going to be much of the same, because basically his main thing is that he got an email about the Goldfast video.
01:02:46
Speaker
but was pulled off his server the next day and that was his only direct experience. He said he spoke to some sub commanders about amazing performance of USO's and he said that his belief was a direct, people decades long UAP cover-up. Now he's a real rep now, he carries a load of clout, he's very well respected, he's a really good and knowledgeable person so that carried weight but he didn't really have much to the story but he also said Arrow had tried to do a sign up on him, got him in and asked him, told him that their historical report was real and you know he should get behind it and accept what they were saying. It was all rubbish. So he told him, I suppose it was very polite because Tim is very polite, way out of goal. But he reported that to Congress and a lot of them were very critical about Arrow.
01:03:33
Speaker
And finally Michael Gold who as I thought said absolutely nothing of any substance and basically just did a pitch for funding for NASA which was extremely irritating as I say some people thought he would do a do some sort of talk about what had happened with Bigelow and all that but no nothing at all and he sort of was a bit more open-minded than his NASA colleagues were on that committee, but he shouldn't really have been there. So that was what happened. So you might say, so what happened? I think it was quite clear some of the Nancy Mason, the other committee members were quite frustrated that the witnesses couldn't go any further and had to go in a skip. That was quite frustrating.
01:04:20
Speaker
they couldn't answer in the open setting, but the questioning by and large was pretty good and it did expose a number of very important facts about UAP, the LHI existence, surveillance, secret government stuff, all the stuff I'd just mentioned there before, but it was being withheld by the US government. So whilst it was sort of disappointing, in a way, that the hearings didn't go further, there was definitely and there was definitely some attempts to suppress the witnesses it did get out there very clearly were some serious issues that Congress needed to look at and I think that the casual member of the public who was listening to them what would have been quite shocked again if you think there's been this audience created by these books and these documentaries
01:05:07
Speaker
and the journalists had insisted again it was a pretty big confirmation and the other thing all the congress people took it seriously there was no mocking and giggling and whatever they all saw it was seriously and they were all clearly quite irritated but they thought it was a bear bear and they'd been misled and that was a big sea change to me so I think what the outshot of this may be because again this was the big roll of the dice and what I thought could have been very stupid. I don't think it was again not down the wall and the game changer people were hoping for because there were no whistleblower first-hand witnesses but I think it made the case for a European select committee where it's adversarial
01:05:52
Speaker
like the Godfather 2 movie where they've got this big adversarial select and asking people questions with lawyers and investigation. It's made the chances of that a lot stronger and I'm going to come on to that a bit later. But it's also, yeah, I think it's made that quite a bit stronger and it also has raised the possibility and talk after that of some of the provisions of the disclosureapp Disclosure, UAP Disclosure Act being put back in the legislation in December, namely this review board thing which is where somebody independently does it. So I think it had quite a big impact but again the proof of the pudding is in the eating I suppose and we'll see. So that was that. I don't know what your thoughts on the hearing were there gentlemen. I think for me do you think we were spoiled last year because you had three big
01:06:47
Speaker
that essentially became big hitters last year. Ryan Graves, who'd personally witnessed them, Dave Fraver personally witnessed them with the tic-tac, and David Groeschud personally investigated. And now this year is sort of It's taken a little step back in my mind. It was, it was like you said, it was good. I think Lou made a comment to say that if this is adver adversarial tech, then this is catastrophic failure of the intelligence services of like 9-11 times
01:07:26
Speaker
yeah magnitude yeah this is literally the biggest screw-up of of all time if this is not non-human intelligence so i think that that comment does well either says that the u.s are incompetent with their intelligence which i'm not entirely sure they are or it reinforces the fact that We clearly have no idea what this is. And I think that was one of the bigger takeaways for me. And Tim Gallaudet, I And like where he said that his emails had been wiped the next day about the officer off the server. So it it shows that somebody's definitely got a massive interest in ensuring that this information stays secret. And
01:08:20
Speaker
ah think it could have done more but at least like you said Dave people the Congress were taking it um seriously they weren't laughing and I didn't think considering what come out last time with Dave Grush and everybody if anything that was super wild compared to anything that we've we've heard sort of publicly in in Congress before so this was a bit more subdued I think and maybe the fallout of it will come to find out over the coming months, I suppose, as to what what Congress decides to do next.
01:08:57
Speaker
yeah For me, I watched a lot of the the hearing, but it didn't quite keep my attention as much as the gush one. It's going to be hard to top that. for i mean I was cheering, punching the air, shouting at the screen, watching that one. This one wasn't quite as thrilling obviously for us as well there wasn't too much in there that was different got the usual can't answer that in this setting we can i can tell you in the skiff but i'd say the question if i miss mace was was good one of the things i couldn't stop looking at was the tv tiny bottles of water in front of louis ando and that's how much the um that's how how much the actual hearing was taking me okay looking at these little tiny bottles of water i think there's not much in there
01:09:43
Speaker
But the quote, I mean, there's a couple, obviously the statements from Lou that you talked about, about the, that there is non-human technology that isn't made, that's based on non-human made, and what Greg has said then. It is striking comments. He did take away, like Greg said, the last year's one. He looked at this in isolation.
01:10:03
Speaker
it's actually really really good stuff like something that a couple of years ago probably wouldn't have thought we'd ever have but now it does seem tame in comparison to what we've had and some of it does seem a lot of the same old Lou still saying about need for protection ah people obviously being and and the reputation being tarnished and all this stuff for whistleblowers and the needs of moving forward in terms of the review board and like independent oversight and accountability in terms of managing this UAP stuff and I guess again it's going to come down to we've got a new government coming in and so we'll see what gets put in this one even if it if anything does get added to the legislation it's just I guess what seems to happen after all these hearings and stuff is a waiting game to see if anything actually happens after it it's all one good to keep talking about it and more people going forward which is good
01:10:53
Speaker
ah different names again obviously not as good as like say Fravor and Graves and stuff but it is still different names being thrown in and rep to people because if you like the way that role NASA you have the European study but it's still NASA kind of from the advisory board and stuff like that so I think it moves the dial forward definitely it just keeps the conversation going within Congress within the Senate stuff like that keeping it in the people's eye I think is the main thing and hopefully we'll start to see the actual result of that sooner now we're 81 something gosh hopefully we see start's start it's hard to see some of this actually come into to mean something official I guess yeah I think you're dead right Ash I think it was a bit of an anti-climax from last year that was the biggest thing but it did move it forward but I suppose what we'll have I do I definitely think you're right on the money there
01:11:47
Speaker
But what we're looking for, if you think of what, from the last thing in the test is, is it a knockout blow yet?
Anticipation for Documentaries and Legislative Moves
01:11:54
Speaker
And it isn't quite that, is it? What we're looking for, what we're saying was by the end of the year, there's going to be some big thing and it's not, weird it's like a boxing match where you can't quite land the punch, you know, and knock somebody out. So I'm going to come up, get into the new government in a minute. I just wanted to talk about the arrow, did the arrow hearing.
01:12:16
Speaker
and then we'll get on to that I think because I think that's really significant and but yeah so I totally agree with that so just to talk about I don't know you know I love RO and I've got loads of time for him as I've demonstrated many times but anyway This was held on the 19th of November, five days after the oversight committee. It was to allow the new head of arrow, Dr. John Kozlowski. I murdered that, didn't I? Another Dr. K, that really annoyed me, that, because I used to like charling the name on Twitter, but now I like i can't do that, because he's the same bloody initials, but anyway. He comes to brief the subcommittee on its annual progress, you know, and he has to do that every year. Now, much have been made of this new Shelly Fintown,
01:12:59
Speaker
Then he said they'd heard good things about him. He was not going to be like Kirk Patrick and he was going to restore faith in arrow, got a good military and IC background to do. So we heard good things about him. I thought, yeah, right. Anyway, he also actually talked to a good game at the pre-hearing press conference appearing open to many possibilities and saying he could not explain some things about UAP p performance, which a lot of people swooned out in the uh on the x space there now what a great book he was but however uh can i put this when the committee lights were on him and he had susan goth sitting five yards behind him with her eyes boring into the back of his head and another old school arrow and all the other old school arrow cronies sitting behind him unfortunately my view just just my view he reverted to type and what do i mean by that
01:13:53
Speaker
There's no change in the approach of methodology. He didn't disavow the arrow of historical report, but for me it's fundamental. There was no criticism of the negative comments Sean Kirkpatrick's been making about whistleblowers ever since he left his job, or indeed he's deputy who's still in a job, he's still making.
01:14:13
Speaker
So that to me needed to be said, maybe he wouldn't have said it quite like that there, but there was nothing, no apology, no nothing. Remember, he's trying to get people back on site. He kept to the same line, and this is for me fundamental. He totally won't say that inexplicable intelligent performance by an intelligently controlled craft has got to logically mean they're being thrown by a known civilisation. Can't mean anything else, and he keeps saying, oh we're not sure it could be this book
01:14:44
Speaker
If you've admitted, when nobody's got, and it's been intelligently controlled, it must be from a known civilization or something where you don't know, but it cannot be. But if they say that, then they've got to go after it. So they keep saying, we're not sure, we need more data, we can't quite know. And to me, that's the fundamental dodge that they're engaged in, a or they're engaged in a few dodgies. So he wouldn't get off the fence on that.
01:15:14
Speaker
Instead, he said the usual things. We haven't got enough information. He used the same impossible proof criteria, but shocker battery did, where you'd never prove anything. ah He kept using this no very viable proof of ET without defining either what an ET, it's extraterrestrial is, no definition ever and saying what viable proof would look like because you never proved that. With that definition you could have no damn well there were extraterrestrial origin and you still couldn't prove it by that criteria.
01:15:46
Speaker
So that was, again, this line, just to be more factual for a minute, reported I would now add over sixteen hundred cases it had He'd had 757 in the last year, which is a load. He said there'd been 700, and I think that phrase was doing a lot of work there when we break down the figures, had been identified as prosaic objects, but 900 lacked sufficient scientific data to analyze. How convenient is that? What they've done, they've just put them in an archive.
01:16:15
Speaker
But what's sufficient scientific data? Well, if you have the same high bar, that gives you an excuse to shove them all off, doesn't it? and today So I think that's what's been going on. And if it's 900, they can't have that many that they've identified. Anyway, be it as in May, 21 cases from the recent report in IED this year could not be explained and were true anomalies. IED couldn't explain them. So that's still a lot.
01:16:42
Speaker
and I think there's another 20 odd from the time before so that's about 40 odd now but even they couldn't shove under the carpet and they had to look at you so he also said there were some flight safety concerns and but there was no evidence and there was no evidence to him from foreign adversaries so there's a bit more open there to give him his due You talked about this new check tech called the Gramling, which is you can deploy to check out UAP. But to be honest with you, they've got a sea to space, absolutely. brilliant
01:17:14
Speaker
detection system already that can probably read, you know, the serial number on a bank note inside your pocket. So why do you need this new tech? I don't know. That just sounds like another dodge to me. I mean, I might be wrong, I'm not a technician, but they say, because the implication of that is we haven't got the gear to detect it already, so we need this new stuff. That's what that's doing, in my view.
01:17:36
Speaker
they may believe it, it might be more easily deployable by different teams, that's okay, but I think that's, I think they've got plenty of data as that immaculate constellation would imply. ah He talked more about transparency, but the only transparency he's interested in is being transparent about cases they claim to resolve, so that's no transparency really, is it?
01:18:02
Speaker
They did two cases that they claimed to resolve, the Goldfast and the Agua Dila one in Puerto Rico, one over a volcano. I won't go into two of these, but these debunks have been widely criticised in the community because they just seem like it might be so it is a attempt, you know, like Mick West does, or it could be so that it is that, you know, without any, there was no data or paperwork released to do that. Ryan Graves criticised when he was at the Goldfast saying he hadn't shown the full footage,
01:18:30
Speaker
of nine crafted formation around the weather and they had interviewed the pilots so the thing couldn't be very clear. On the Aguadilla one they said there were balloons going at seven miles an hour and the infrared signal changed because they were saying temperatures are low to low. Anyway no paperwork again and there's been two massive reports on that one by the SCU a 256 page report and then by another group very scientific So if they are fine, but there's no all working, they've got a lot of foremen for doing these shoddy, could be, so it is type. so ah So there's been a lot of criticism for that. So i' try the volcano, well, nobody's heard of that, so nobody knows about that. So and finally, at the end, when I could stand no more, he thought he said, oh, we urge whistleblowers to come forward to tomorrow.
01:19:22
Speaker
But given he's nothing to address the past behaviour, who's no whistleblower's going to come forward to arrow? With all that, when he's still slagging, whistleblower's off. And it looks like the CIA are running the bloody, you know, the thing. And the minute a whistleblower comes through, they probably disappear a couple of days later, when they go to arrow or whatever, they suddenly lose the job. So it was very disappointing for me, terrible optics with Susan Gough,
01:19:49
Speaker
Glowering, the Susan Gough Glower, I think that's the bottom of my mind. And a lot of people, I'm being particularly harsh here, I get, but I'm sick to death of it, because I just think they're a total disinformation operation. But it looks like they're still their old self, and I think they're trying to put this genie back in the bottle, which is why they picked those cases, because they thought if we can debunk them, we can start to debunk the whole edifice of UAP stuff. That's why they went through and i think they're also trying to run down the overall ah defense authorization clock because if you remember they give it seven years this entire study i think it's five to seven years so i think they're just running down the clock and then they think it'll stop and something else will happen so anyway that's what i thought about that i don't if you had any thoughts on arrow but if you have you haven't then we can sort of go on to what's happening in next and maybe sum up a bit
01:20:46
Speaker
I mean, for me, I pretty much agree with most of what ah you say about Arrow. I watched, well, I skimmed through ah that hearing. But what obviously interests me is the data and stuff like that. And they put up kind of data and the trends and stuff from 1996 to 2024. And what I find interesting about this is the the shapes they have and they kind of do the pie chart of the most popular party shapes and stuff.
01:21:15
Speaker
Near North mirrors the data that I have, so from the 5,000 sightings in my database of UK sightings over the past four years, the Tankana top five shapes reported mirror kind of a similar percentage wise to what's in this hour report.
01:21:35
Speaker
It's just far it was quite interesting to see that parallel between the cases that they've been investigating or they reported or slash not investigating and to what database settings I go from the UK is just that similar to each other and so that's quite for me me up on the data side of things.
01:21:55
Speaker
was obviously very interesting just how that runs parallel to each other but apart from that yeah it was not much not much there again for me that's really good though that ask because that's really interesting and it shows the I've done I think they're okay at gathering some data and Kirkpatrick started off quite well gathering the data it's just as the questions pile up and they try to dodge more and more they sort of dig come to the end of the rope but yeah that's really interesting there has been some good data on that i mean and that's really that's really good that at least the something positive come out it because they do have some of the data is pretty good and i'm hoping this new person
01:22:35
Speaker
just to do something I just think while it's run by it's in the OSDI I just think that nowhere even if he does want to do it you know but anyway yes that's really good so what ah last thing all i do about i want to go on what were going to happen next and i want to talk about the new trump and get on that bit and i'll fuck on what I'm sorry I'm going through but I think it's worth it to go through it all isn't it you know just to sort of where we are so that's what I'm going on So I think where what so what I suppose and what next? So as I said, last time I was on, there was a bit of an upswing in the momentum towards disclosure. And somebody said, Matthew Pine said, there's something big could be released by the end of the year. I said, we might have a Senate hearings or whatever. Yeah, it's some big hearings. But we're not quite there yet.
01:23:30
Speaker
ports ah So I suppose if Team Disclosure was a bomber flying towards the target, it's received quite a lot of heavy flak. So where are we? Loosebooks moved the dial, but it's not made a knockout revelation just to summarise where we have been so far. The UAP Disclosure Act was completely scuppered. That was an engine down, I suppose. The first two documentaries released were not earth-shattering, but they moved the dial a bit.
01:23:58
Speaker
Immaculate constellations and the drone stuff has caused a bit of a buzz. so I'd say like that's interesting. Again, not a knockout. Congress hearings, as we were saying, were significant but didn't produce a knockout sort of blow. And this arrow one was again a bit of a disappointment. So I don't think we're quite ready to see those bombs hit the target yet. Now what's coming up is we've got two new documentaries.
01:24:25
Speaker
James Fox is the programme which is focused upon the Crash Retriever programme and it partly has some whistle-bowers in it. I don't know how many of them I've done now. And that's talking about the programme. That's supposed to be really good.
01:24:38
Speaker
and now move the ball forward. I think just listening to the new music because he showed it so I think it's going to be good but again I don't think it's going to be quite the knockout and they've got this Jason sounds testifying there is a bit of interest about his provenance and some of the things he said to say so I don't know, but after the job my mind's still out on that guy, so I don't want to say you know he's grifty because I don't think he is, but we don't know. but So I think that is going to be a brilliant documentary. I'm not sure whether it just quite gets the ball over the line. We'll have to see. But there's another one coming up, which I think is going to be after Christmas and the end of the day. And that's supposed to be going to be massively
Potential Disruptions and Disclosure Under Trump
01:25:20
Speaker
impactful. It's got 30 highly credible and credential witnesses.
01:25:24
Speaker
who are going to testify about NHI reality, crash retrieval and all these things. And I think this is where this famous person that Matt Pines talked about that I mentioned last time, I think if they're going to say something, it's going to be on this documentary. I think it's one of them. Interestingly, that NASA blogs on it that Matt, what's his name, Gold, which doesn't feel very confident, but apparently it's going to be, this is going to be the game changer. So if people are looking out for something, the program may be, but maybe not,
01:25:54
Speaker
but this one, if this doesn't do it then we can, I think we should go and take a month off, I think. But it is a bit unclear when it's going to come out, my feeling is it's going to be sort of between winter and spring, it's going to be soon but who knows, you never know with these things, do you? So I think combined with the impacts of those books, the congressional hearings and maybe some of these other documentaries,
01:26:20
Speaker
It might get us to the select committee hearings and we might, if we're really lucky, see this stuff slipped in of death to the NDA around the parts of the European disclosure act. But it's still uncertain. It's not the rosy picture or the big win that I think I was talking about. I wasn't saying it was going to happen, but that was the target. You know, when it was in August when Lou's book was coming out, it's not that.
01:26:47
Speaker
And in a way, it's still a bit uncertain, and we have heard this before. So the final thing I want to talk about, so we just finish off, oh, just generally chat, is the real game changer for me is the election of Trump, right? And I'll just say why I think that is, and you guys probably have had some thoughts about this yourself. Politics aside, I'm not going to go on about all that, as to both. but The Trump's administration, they threaten it to really try to dismantle the current governmental, military,
01:27:17
Speaker
and intelligence community bureaucracy, breakup departments, move some out of Washington, drain the swamp as they say, sack loads of people. Right, that's the plan and he's talked about it in some detail. Now given the whole the establishment has over the cover-up, it may be this is the only this kind of destabilization, this collateral damage it might actually create the conditions for disclosure, because they might lose the grip on the levers for enough time for it actually to change the game. Now, Trump has actually alleged a lot of crazy conspiracy theories, you know, and all these things that Bob Maga and all that have said, but he really needs to find one that's actually real,
01:28:02
Speaker
but he can hand his hat on and use it as a platform to actually justify the changes he's proposing to making, you know, people selling lies, embezzling money. And I will put it to you gentlemen, but the UAP p one is actually a real conspiracy theory, but it's got evidence behind it. So I think it's the only one, that but as I said, it's really, it's well-documented and it's got a lot of motivated people in the pro-disclosure side who know where their bodies are.
01:28:32
Speaker
So I think it's the perfect vehicle for Trump, and he might be the only real vehicle for him to use. And given his pre-election statements and the many pro-disclosure people he's got in his new cabinet, CIA bloke was not getting his name now, but he was the one who talked on Fox News about all the strange things he's doing for my defence guy, intelligence guy. Anyway, they'd been appointed and it might well happen. That's what I'm getting at.
01:28:58
Speaker
And I don't think it's only the Washington establishment who are going to be worried by this. I think it's the Karl Melz and the people, some of the people from Sauer, whatever, may be worried. Because their plan, if you remember, is this sort of slow burn, you know, slow disclosure, but it's all very ordered and it happens over time, you know, on the review board, and it just comes out and the fair catastrophic disclosure.
01:29:25
Speaker
ah all you're coming out and i think the Trump people aren't going to wait for that. I think when they get stuck in, it'll be just smashing the door, smashing things to pieces, breaking the door down, leaving a trail of destruction, and it might all come out. And that might be what we're looking at. So I'm not saying that's great. I don't even survive it, to be honest with you. know In the world of global affairs. But for me, I think this is a potentially big game changer. Because historically, if you look at a lot of areas, sociology, economics, odds
01:29:58
Speaker
There needs to be a big shake up and change to have a step changing what's going on. And this might just be it. So I don't want to talk it up too much, but for me, this is, for all the other stuff I've been talking about, it's great. But this is probably the real big change. And he's unpredictable as we know, Trump. The legacy program manages the very experience that he might do him in or, you know,
01:30:25
Speaker
no pun intended but they might dodge the bullet as it were and but i think it's the best chance we've had for eight eighty years for this secrecy down to my friend so that's my conclusion on that where are we we haven't quite got there yeah maybe we haven't quite made the progress we're in battered and bruised but we have made good progress but these trump things are game changers so there you go chaps what do you think of all that Yeah I never really kind of thought it as much as obviously you have and I think that's some really good points about kind of like the upheaval side of things with obviously threatening to disband all these organisations and these departments and just kind of kind of start with your extra guests with it like with this new department stuff just get rid of all the old ah the old junk or the old wood
01:31:13
Speaker
I think we need like big clock like the countdown to midnight minutes to midnight kind of clock one for disclosure and one for nuclear war like we've had ah with all these Russians and stuff and see how they both kind of compare to each other as we go forward over the next I suppose interesting months and years ah ahead but yeah disclosure like I say coming going for going back It's a boxing match, it's a tactical kind of boxing match that's been going on for a number of years. and Things start looking good but then get we get knocked down but then we come back up with an upper cut and stuff like that. It's me trying to talk boxing terms, I have no idea, I don't watch it. I see you there Ash, I can see you being pretty happy in the in in the old pub fight. there you know when we go out next
01:32:03
Speaker
But yeah, I think we're definitely engine closer to that that midnight, if midnights disclosure kind of thing on the clock. But that's happened to push us back again, like like with the same kind of analogy as the nuclear and minutes to midnight clock countdown, Greg. Here's a wild theory for you. So when a president comes to the end of his term, as part of his outgoing, he can pardon people.
01:32:33
Speaker
Why not let someone just go fucking wild? Due to full disclosure, they get put in prison for breaking the Official Secrets Act, blah blah blah. Trump pardons them at the end and says it was all part of the master plan.
01:32:49
Speaker
It could well. I was wondering if he's got the power to relieve him of their NDAs. I think he probably wouldn't do. It probably has. extremely But as I say, all this word classification might stop it. I'll tell you something that has happened. You know, when Crushy's the Attorney's Committee Director General, I was doing that study into Crushy's allegations. Well, he resigned last week because Crushy, Trump has said he's going to So I separate those departments, that those Inspector Generals for the actual departments and set it all up. So one bit of collateral damage from that is but that guy has resigned. So I don't know what's going to happen. That's a downside of that because he's resigned. So I don't know what happens with that inquiry going forward because that's quite essential because that means they'll all get the call spell at some point with that. But he's obviously resigned fearing what's going to come generally because that's where they're going to go when they're going to look at him as much. So yeah.
01:33:43
Speaker
is That's really interesting. Now there has been some talk. I don't think that Biden might do something mad on his way out. don't He done something mad for lusful years and the he? No, that's right. I don't think he's going to do that. I think we'll leave that one to the Trump administration. I've never understood why Trump hasn't gone for this earlier because it's got everything for him.
01:34:05
Speaker
In a way, I mean, I don't believe all these pop theories, but it is. I mean, that's just me. I'm not saying whatever, but I don't. But this is one, but said we've always thought this with the UAP is one that's true. Oh, we think there's a lot of evidence for it anyway. So it is a real conspiracy. So you'd think it'd be the ideal one for him. But the rumor has been he's always been worried about being bumped off.
01:34:27
Speaker
but he needs this now so it might it might be quite interesting but I definitely think that we're gonna see some big changes and and this lot I've not seen what's coming you know and this destabilization might do something but as you say that's a very interesting comparison there that's the doomsday clock and the disclosure that's what's called but yeah I know I don't because I remember that as you were talking I couldn't remember either or you were saying it's just come to me now but anyway so but yeah that's it that's really interesting I've got some final thoughts because I thought we might want to do you know your BS might want to do a follow-up maybe next month or whatever. Just some broader questions that people might want to consider near the end to take away with them at the end of the show really. So I've just got a little list about wrote down a lot of times actually. So finally, what are the NIH high up to? What is the game? Are they surveilling us? Are they waiting for something to happen? Are they just the scientists? What's going on?
01:35:35
Speaker
Do we have this would crash me material things that we got secret branches and knowledge all areas of physics we saw us know about but nobody else does and we're all ah everybody else is learning useless theories like string theory and all that very redundant and every got over secret branches of knowledge you know but we don't know about that's an interesting one. Is there already an agreement or an understanding with the NHI?
01:36:01
Speaker
And FDAs, what has been the product of that relationship in terms of weapons, tech, the actions we've taken historically over time, the last 80 years? The other one is, is there another context of that relationship? Is there something coming, like we're talking about? Or is there something driving the disclosure, the accuracy of the urgency? Is there something imminent was the title? I lose book and that's always intrigued me.
01:36:28
Speaker
Are the NHI trying to save us from something? Are they helping us? Are they saying we'll save 10% here? Who knows? And here's one that's very interesting. and Is there a conflict between NHI groups that we're either a part of or we're a subject of? Some people are protecting us, some people wanting to do us in.
01:36:49
Speaker
And if so, have we chosen the right side? So there are some interesting questions for people to think about. I'm not saying any of those are true in terms of these conflicts. I'm just putting it as ideas. But some don't want to hear that not quite a lot. And I've got the whole people. And as I say, all these areas, you know, you've had so many grifters in the field over the years.
01:37:12
Speaker
but you don't know what is true and what isn't and what's exaggeration and what isn't but they are quite interesting questions for me in my mind of what's going on so yeah i don't know if we've got any final thoughts on that before we i don't know if we're getting near to our time ash if you can tell us
01:37:30
Speaker
yeah no Yeah, definitely interesting questions. and We'll keep abreast of the drone development. I think there's a lot too a lot to ponder, a lot to take away I think from this episode. Definitely a lot of food for basically going quite in depth into trying to what what it was what it means, what's happened in the last three months.
01:37:52
Speaker
I'm looking forward to so what what could happen next, especially like say with the new administration coming in. So yeah, let's have a think about well what any of this means. Why why now? Why is there anything happening now? Is it because something big is coming? Could be something could be imminent? I would say is it going to be 27?
01:38:16
Speaker
or it's never going to happen at all. ah i Have your thoughts, anyone listening let us know. ah Interesting to hear your thoughts as always and last words from me I guess is yeah keep looking, keep reading and keep listening. So thanks Dave for another fascinating and I always love these kind of deep dives into What's going on? I miss our monthly round tables. It would be fantastic. It's good to just get up to date and get chatting about and what's happened. so I can sound very knowledgeable when I go to work and talk about it now. Exactly. It's not a rush, I would say. it Don't do yourself down.
01:38:54
Speaker
yeah So, cheers Dave, as as always. Yeah, I appreciate it Dave, nice to chat to you again and it's it's always an in-depth, knowledgeable chat and it definitely covers off stuff that I don't necessarily have that deep understanding of so it's it's good to to hear more detail of stuff that I read online like I mentioned I'm more of the the typical UAP person in the public so I appreciate that. Well thank you to you guys I really enjoyed it I mean I know it's been a quite a gallop through all the stuff but I think that show myself and Ash did last time I really enjoyed it when we were talking it as we were talking it when we did it
01:39:36
Speaker
and this seems to have been a natural first of all. It's a lot of data for people, hopefully. Even if you don't agree with what we've been saying or what I've been saying, at least it gives them at least something to look at and analyse it through. And if you don't agree, that's fine.
01:39:51
Speaker
But I think that's the thing with it, it's understanding what it means. So I really enjoyed it and I think maybe when we next start, unless there's something mega happens, we maybe debate some of those issues I was talking about and so many crossovers that are coming up with all the work that's coming up now about consciousness, paranormal, things like that. There's definitely a big bleeding.
01:40:14
Speaker
I think people are looking at things and I finally would urge you just as a totally separate thing there's a show called the telepathy tapes that has been people have been talking about Alex and that's about telepathy and people with non-verbal autism and there's a lot of evidence for that and he's on a podcast and that's something I think you guys should check out and we all should do because it's about consciousness and rep about night he sounds, when I just say i like that he sounds weird you know I mean not to us of course but generally but he's brilliant and so what and that to me is a perfect example of a lot of the crossover of a lot of these areas and the sort of stuff you guys cover as well as the UAP stuff so I think now we're still going to start to be forced into these areas of cross-pollinate you know and so
01:41:04
Speaker
very interesting in the next months to discuss it. OK, cheers. Thanks for having me anyway, I do. And thanks for letting me talk so much as well, I do appreciate it. Yeah, no, definitely. I call you the fan of knowledge for a reason, and that's why. Make me blush. So yeah, cheers, everyone. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next week. See you soon, guys.
01:41:35
Speaker
Thanks for listening to Pursuit of the Paranormal, title music created by Steve Yarwood and Ambienfinity. If you like the show, please follow us on Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, X, and Instagram. And if you really like the show, please rate and review the show wherever you are listening. It really does help. See you next time, and until then, stay weird.