← Danny Jones Podcast
Danny Jones Podcast
#308 - Underwater Area 51: Best Evidence Aliens Live Deep Under Our Oceans | Richard Dolan
03:11:07
Loading summary
Transcript740 lines
- [00:00]
A
Support for this podcast and the following message comes from America's Navy.
- [00:05]
B
The Navy offers new graduates hands on.
- [00:07]
A
Training and experience in careers like computer science, aviation and medicine, plus education. And sign on bonuses. Parents help your grads start their career today@navy.com.
- [00:27]
B
We just had this lady on the other day who was friends with this dude that I just learned about named Joe. I'm sure you've heard of him, Joseph Farrell.
- [00:34]
A
Oh, yeah, I know Joe very well.
- [00:35]
B
You know him personally?
- [00:36]
A
Yeah, we're friends.
- [00:37]
B
Oh, really?
- [00:37]
A
Yeah, I know Joe.
- [00:38]
B
I just learned about this guy.
- [00:40]
A
Yeah. Yeah.
- [00:40]
B
And I was just blown.
- [00:42]
A
I've known Joe some of this stuff. Yeah.
- [00:44]
B
What do you make of that research? I mean, this is the title of that book. What was it? Swastikas and Flying Saucers.
- [00:49]
A
Yeah. Well, Joseph has. I don't know where he is now because he wrote his first, like, basically he became known as the Nazi UFO guy.
- [00:59]
B
Okay.
- [01:00]
A
Like that was really his original training.
- [01:03]
B
Yeah.
- [01:04]
A
Was in. What's it called? Patristics. So studying Eastern Orthodox religiosity. Like Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
- [01:13]
B
He's like a bishop in the, in the, in the Catholic Church of, of Russia or something.
- [01:17]
A
Yeah, I think. Well, I think Orthodox.
- [01:19]
B
Okay, Orthodox.
- [01:20]
A
Okay, Eastern Orthodox, some version of that. And. But he, he's a really highly intelligent man, of course, and he got into studying the Nazi UFO connection and looking at the Foo Fighters and particularly in Europe as potentially Nazi Third Reich technology. And so he went into that in several books. However, you know, the real, the thing with Joseph, I mean, you would have to ask him directly about this, what he thinks today. But I know that he became very, very open to an extraterrestrial interpretation of the UFO phenomenon over time because, like, in the early years, I think it was easy to interpret all of his work as saying all of this phenomenon is secret tech, earthbound, secret tech. And I don't think that he's in that place at least the last few times that we've talked. I didn't really think that he was. So I don't know. You know, we're always evolving. We're always like, we are constantly thinking through, like, what do I, what do I think this year as opposed to last year? And it's important because speaking for myself, I've. I've gone to a lot of different places as to, like, what I think is actually happening when we talk about UFOs or now UAP, I always love talking.
- [02:30]
B
Are we rolling, Steve?
- [02:31]
A
Yeah. I'm wondering, Steve, are we good?
- [02:33]
B
We are rolling. Oh, beautiful. So I always love the opportunity, when the opportunity arises to talk to somebody like yourself, because I've only talked to maybe three, roughly three, maybe four people on this show that have been studying this topic for over, over 25, 30 years, like yourself. Most people have been in this stuff just, you know, for a few years recently since like the emergence of YouTube. But I think it was like the first one was James Fox, then Jason Georgiani, Stephen Greer, these types of folks. And you, I've noticed that you've been in a lot of, some of like the biggest documentaries on this topic. So it's always just so interesting to hear people's takes on this stuff when they've been studying, studying for so long. But for people that don't know who you are, can you just give like a brief summary of how you got into this stuff in the first place and what you've been doing ever since? Steve, my audio sounds really odd. Maybe it's just my, my, my headphones. Okay, all right. Yeah, yeah.
- [03:33]
A
So I got involved in this subject a little over 30 years ago. So it was in the like 1993, 94. At that time I was trying to pursue a completely different life. I was working on a PhD in history, cold War studies at the University of Rochester in upstate New York, York. And I was very much into that. I had previous to that I'd studied a lot of European history, a lot of diplomatic history. So that was really my background. And I was in a bookstore in upstate New York, in Syracuse actually, and I think it was 1994 and I saw on a display stand a copy of a book by Timothy Good called Above Top Secret, which is kind of a classic in the UFO field. And it was the subtitle of that book that really caught my attention, the Worldwide UFO Cover Up. And I was like, oh wow, it's like it's 1994 and I didn't know anything about UFOs, like essentially literally nothing. And I had only heard, I'd seen, you know, some old documentaries. I, I'd watched Leonard Nimoy on In Search of and seen some of those things, but I really didn't know anything. And I'd only heard claims of COVID up and this and that. So I remember flipping through Tim's book and I thought, wow, he's got some like interesting documents. He had names of people that I was studying in my own research. And I thought, oh wow, UFOs departments that I was looking into and UFO connections there. And I thought, you know, this is like a completely like unofficial version of history here. Is this true or is this nonsense? Right? And that was really my question. So I bought the book and I like the book, it's a great book. And at the same time I got onto what was then the baby version of the Internet. All of the Usenet groups, people yelling and screaming at each other. But there were some good threads there. And there were a couple of people that I really learned from. And I just went down this rabbit hole and I thought, I'm going to spend two or three months of my life and I want to find out is there something to this or is there not something to this? Is this a waste of time like all of the other people in the academic community were assuming at that time, or is there something here? Because here I was, I was studying basically the presidency of Harry Truman. I'm looking at the early Cold War, 1950, and I'm thinking there were claims that there was a very big UFO cover up going on by then. And these were not trivial claims. And I just thought, what I don't like is having a big question mark hanging over my head on an area where I was trying to become an expert. And I just wanted to know. I just wanted to know. And so I thought I'd spend a couple of months to look into it. And I got hooked. I got totally hooked. Like I discovered there were some very powerful declassified US Government documents that were obtained through Freedom of Information, which itself didn't really get going until the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter kind of strengthened FOIA at that time. And so at that time, a lot of very interesting US government military documents were released that they wouldn't prove that UFOs are aliens, but they did prove, absolutely proved, that these flying saucers that the government was telling the world nothing to this, it's all hoaxes, misidentification. They proved that no, actually military personnel were seeing objects described as flying saucer shape invading sensitive airspace that they were not supposed to be doing, engaging in maneuvers that were supposed to be impossible, being chased by our aircraft and essentially playing cat and mouse games over and over again, right? For years and years. And you know, you read, and then you read statements by the Director of Scientific intelligence of the CIA in 1952, a man named H. Marshall Chandwell, who's telling his boss, Walter Beadle Smith, Director of the CIA, that this phenomena is being seen at such altitudes and over sensitive military installations in such a manner that they are not attributable to, to natural phenomena or known types of aerial vehicles as A direct quote. And you read that and you're like, how else can he put it other than saying, boss, I think we're being invaded? So I read enough of these documents early on to think there's absolutely something that is at least worth investigating. And then it opens up like a thousand other questions like, where are the other academicians? Where's the university crowd? Looking into this, you would think, if you want to debunk this, fine, debunk it. Let's look at the actual evidence here and deal with it. But they would never deal with it. They would never deal with the fact that, like, why was the first director of the CIA, a man named Roscoe Helen Kotter, a member of a UFO organization called NICAP in the. In the 1950s until he, clearly under pressure, resigned in 1962, just before NICAP was trying to get congressional hearings back then.
- [08:32]
B
So the CIA was created the same year Roswell happened.
- [08:35]
A
Right.
- [08:35]
B
Or was it a year?
- [08:36]
A
No, 1947.
- [08:37]
B
1947, right.
- [08:38]
A
Although you could see the predecessor organizations, the OSS during World War. And then something called the CIG, which was in 1946, going into 47. And then out of that, you get the Central Intelligence Agency. That's all with the National Security reorg that happened in 1947.
- [08:54]
B
So what do you think was going on? What do you think happened at Roswell?
- [09:00]
A
What I think happened at Roswell was. I think there was the recovery of. Of something that was highly exotic that we probably did not make. You don't say Roswell.
- [09:10]
B
You don't think it was any human manufacturing or any human technology? No, because I had. So. So Jason. I think you know who Jason Giorgiani is. Right. I had him on recently. He was explaining to me how General Corso, I think it was, had some sort of report of the Roswell crash. And he mentions stuff like Velcro, Kevlar, night vision, all these human technologies being recovered at that crash site.
- [09:38]
A
Yeah, Philip Kors, he wasn't a general, but he was an officer in the US army, and in the late 50s, early 60s, worked under a very important general named Arthur Trudeau, where he said in his book the Day After Roswell was published in 1997, he stated, yes, my assignment at that time was to. We had. We had our own little cache of alien tech, essentially. And Corso said his job was to kind of segue that out to private industry as quietly as he could. And he did say things like Kevlar and things like high tensile fibers and things like, I think fiber optics. Perhaps I think he might have said.
- [10:18]
B
I remember night vision and Velcro.
- [10:20]
A
Night vision, Velcro, I forgot. Yeah, but I could. So. Well that's, that doesn't, that doesn't debunk the Roswell. I think Corso is very much stating that Roswell did happen as something extraordinary.
- [10:33]
B
But like, so the, the, the implications of that would mean that either A, aliens use Velcro and Kevlar and night vision or B, that it was just some man made thing.
- [10:44]
A
Well, no, there's a third possibility which is that you know, when you're, we're being all theoretical because like I wasn't there, we weren't there. But if you are imagining that you've got a team of brilliant human scientists studying this like magical alien tech that they can't figure out, they still might be able to generate some pretty interesting ideas as a result of that, which might be variations, you know, of some of the alien tech. I don't think that's impossible at all. So Velcro. Yeah, I don't really know if aliens use Velcro be kind of a handy thing for your sneakers or whatever footwear they got. But other, I mean it seems to me that if you've got something as exotic as technology that theoretically could be thousands of years ahead of us or more, that a, you could struggle in figuring out a lot of these things. Material science, I think notoriously is said to be one of the most important areas that human scientists are trying to replicate and.
- [11:44]
B
Material science.
- [11:46]
A
Yeah. Like you know, just the other day Hal Puthoff is on Rogan and he's talking. Yeah, yeah. And, and Hal has talked about the so called meta material. So what is the metamaterial? It's this artifact that was sent out to Art Bell back in the day in the 90s, and then Art entrusted to Linda Moulton Howe and then Linda over a number of years kind of passed it out to different scientists including Hal Puthoff and Eric Davis. They looked at this and so what they found was that it was layered with I mean ultra, ultra tiny layers of bismuth and magnesium and I think titanium in ways that we still do not necessarily know how to manufacture. And so that would be the material science and that would be an important thing like you'd need to master if you want to do what flying saucers do. You need to have the materials that are sufficient to be able to withstand whatever you need them to do. Or in the case of what House speculated to, what was his phrasing? He said to serve as a Waveguide for high frequency electromagnetic waves in the terahertz range. When I heard him say that the first time, I'm like, what the hell are you talking about? But really what it seemed like is a kind of anti gravity, anti gravitic type of a thing. So you'd have light or electromagnetic radiation hitting this thing and somehow, in some way that I cannot understand, it would produce a kind of effect on gravity. Wow, Interesting. Yeah. So in other words, this is really interesting to me because, you know, normally for years and years, you're thinking, how do they do anti gravity? Pardon me, Some kind of propulsion system, some kind of engine. But no, if it's in the skin of the craft itself, yeah, that's a really kind of nifty solution. And maybe that's part of what they do. Wow.
- [13:41]
B
Yeah. The only my introduction to this whole anti gravity theory was the Bob Lazar story and how he talked about that little basketball size reactor being inside the craft or whatever, and it somehow like repelled things away. And he explained it. It was a great explanation that made sense to my brain, how basically you like, you're falling through space by creating this crazy, like, heart shaped propulsion pocket, right?
- [14:05]
A
Oh, this is above my, my pay grade. Yeah, I'm standing it too. But there's a couple of different theories that people have had as to how these craft do what they do.
- [14:15]
B
This episode of the podcast is brought to you by my good friends at Verso. Have you ever suffered from waking up too many times at night because you have to use the potty? Most people in their 30s and 40s deal with a condition called nocturia, waking up to go pee pee. And it only gets worse with age. Your bladder holds less, your sleep gets lighter, and your hormonal changes mean your kidneys keep pumping out urine instead of saving it for the morning. The only shot I have of getting a decent night's sleep is between 9pm and 2am before one of my kids wakes me up. And I actually heard Andrew Huberman say recently that every hour of sleep you get before midnight counts for two hours of sleep after midnight, which is why I started drinking Evening Being by verso. It has 3 grams of glycine, proven to calm an overactive bladder, dropping nighttime bathroom runs. It also helps you fall asleep faster, stay in deep, sleep longer, and feel sharper the next day. Plus, it's melatonin free and has clinically studied ingredients shown in multiple human studies to calm the mind, support mood, and promote restorative sleep. And it tastes good. I personally like to heat mine up before I drink it because it's like a nice warm, cuddly hug before bed. Since I started drinking evening being, it's helped me go to sleep earlier and get a solid amount of deep sleep before my kids wake me up. Plus you fall asleep really fast and wake up feeling refreshed. And don't take my word for it. Check out some of their incredible reviews they have listed on their site from the people that have experienced better sleep with evening being. Click the link in the description or head on over to ver. So Dany and use the code Danny to save 15% on your order. Again, go to V. So Danny and use my code Danny to save 15% on your order today. Thank you Verso, for sponsoring this episode.
- [15:59]
A
I'll just finish answering your first question, which I didn't properly do. Like how did I. Where did I go and how did I get into this? So I started. I'm looking at all of these early documents. That's really what got me in. So I was always a document kind of a person. I wanted to know what was the. As far as we can understand the classified attitude that was taken during the 1940s and 50s especially, that's where I started. And I will just say we can go as far as we decide here, but that the conclusion was very clear that the US national security community knew some elements, knew this was real. This was not made by the Russians, this is not made by us. Someone else is operating this. We did not have control over it and absolute secrecy had to be maintained over this at all costs. That was a conclusion I came to pretty early on and looking at these documents and, and then just reading book after book after book as I was able to scrounge them up at the time. This is back in the 1990s and, and I published my first book on this in 2000. I self published it. And then, and then yeah, in, in 2000 that was still kind of a tough thing to do. But then I, I got picked up by a different publisher and. And then that was. That was the start of my entry into this field back in the early 2000s. And I have never left. It's. It's kept me in its grip ever since.
- [17:24]
B
So your theory was that the, your conclusion was that the national security state knows about something that is not from this earth?
- [17:30]
A
Yeah.
- [17:31]
B
And has that conclusion evolved at all over the years?
- [17:35]
A
Yes, it's. It's developed and it's deepened. I guess I could say I've never, I've never since Then formed the conclusion that it's fake or that it's not a concern. I've never gone there. But there's different variations of how it works. Like I remember when I first published that book, I got an email from astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who was Apollo 14, and we. It was lucky for me he was the first kind of famous person to endorse my work. It was like, great.
- [18:07]
B
Oh, wow.
- [18:08]
A
Moonwalking astronaut. And. But he said to me, look, your, your theory about the COVID up is not exactly right. Like he said he believed that my theory was that it's like the government and like the President's in on it and everyone's in on the secrecy. And I don't really know if I truly believe that, but maybe more back then. And he said this is like, I don't know, 2001, 2002. Early he said, I don't think it works like that. It's very privatized. You know, there's a lot of, a lot of fingers in this pie and it's not all federal government. And, and so over the years, like a number of people in that crowd, including help out off and including a number of other folks, would drop me a little, little drops along the way, little breadcrumbs and indicating like, we've got a privatized system. Like more and more you look at it, it's, there's government, there's classified elements to this, but there is also an element that is beyond government.
- [19:21]
B
Yeah.
- [19:22]
A
And it's kind of nebulous, like, who are these guys? Is it all, is it all think tanks and corporations or is it something else? And I don't know the full answer to that to this day. But, but that's a big part of this. So you're dealing with a kind of a labyrinth of secrecy. And to the extent that it's privatized makes it much more of a challenge for people to use like freedom of information, for example.
- [19:46]
B
Right, right. Well, that's by design, right?
- [19:48]
A
Yeah, yeah, I think so. So that all of that was an evolution through my years of looking into this.
- [19:53]
B
I have to say one of the biggest turning points for me in this whole topic was that documentary that you were a part of about Paul Benowitz, the Magic Man. Magic man, yeah.
- [20:08]
A
Oh, wow. That was Mark Pilkington, I believe I did that one.
- [20:11]
B
Okay.
- [20:12]
A
2005. Six. Yeah, that's early.
- [20:14]
B
That blew my mind. That totally, that totally blew my mind. Such, first of all, such a well done movie. And two, it really like was eye opening to see to like the, the extent that the, the intelligence people and the people in the Air Force NSA would all work together to basically scramble the mind of one individual just to alter public perception of something.
- [20:39]
A
Yeah, that's an interesting one because to this day the interpretation of what happened with Paul Benowitz is. That's a, that is still an open question in my opinion.
- [20:49]
B
Oh really?
- [20:50]
A
Well, to the extent that. What, why, why was Air Force Office of Special Investigations or CIA possibly or any of these other groups going after Paul Benowitz to screw with his head. They were like. A great book on this was done by Greg Bishop called Project Beta. Project Beta, Yeah, it's a very fine book. I don't fully agree with every conclusion that Greg has, but he did a really excellent job and he needs, he deserves kudos for that. But the basic question is what? So Paul, for people who don't know this, Paul Benowitz was a kind of a small US defense contractor in the 1970s. He lived right near Kirtland Air Force baseball in New Mexico. And he's able to see. And by, he's by the Manzano weapon storage area there, I think, trying to remember this now. Anyway, so he's watching things going on over there, like bizarre aerial activity, right. And he's got, he's got sophisticated tracking information equipment and things like this to look at it. And he's convinced that there are flying saucers or something like that happening. And he's a good patriotic American. He literally wrote to President Reagan after 1981 about this.
- [22:02]
B
Wow.
- [22:02]
A
Like saying you've got to get on top of it, like. And so he was becoming a hassle and a potential security risk for the people over at Kirtland, whatever they were doing. So Greg argued, and I cannot remember what the Magicman documentary actually argued here.
- [22:19]
B
I think the claim was that essentially like 30,000 foot view is that he was a conduit of disinformation into the UFO community to poison the well of the UFO community because they knew there were Soviet spies there.
- [22:30]
A
Yeah, that. Well, that's potential.
- [22:32]
B
Okay. That's what I took from it.
- [22:35]
A
There's definitely espionage and there's definitely the attempt to muddy the waters of the UFO community. But the question is, what was Paul Benowitz actually observing? So was he observing advanced US Defense systems that were then being tested or was he seeing something more than that? And, and I tend to think that maybe a little bit of both. I don't think it was all just that they were only protecting their own tech. I guess that's my own position. I think Benowitz was seeing things that were not all ours. And I only say that because when, first of all, there were a number of other people who are associated with this who firmly believe he was seeing more than that. But also, when you look at the history of violations of sensitive airspace of U.S. bases across the entire U.S. this is an old story. So it's not a unique thing to Kirtland. It's something that. And. And through the 1940s and 50s and 60s and 70s and 80s, that was all still happening. It never stopped. And so I think it's very premature to just dismiss it all as saying he was only looking at our own secret tech. I actually don't believe that. But the fact that they went in and screwed with him and convinced him that it was aliens and allowed him to convince himself, that's what Richard Doty would say. And Richard Doty was very much involved in all of that.
- [24:00]
B
Wasn't there a part of that documentary where they claimed the NSA moved in across the street and was beaming information into his house, saying that the aliens were trying to commune, or they were aliens trying to communicate with him. They were coming to Earth because their planet ran out of water. They're going to be here in 15 years. Something along.
- [24:14]
A
Is that Magic Man? I actually can't remember that.
- [24:16]
B
So that's. That's what I remember from the Magic man documentary.
- [24:18]
A
Maybe.
- [24:19]
B
Yeah.
- [24:19]
A
You know, maybe.
- [24:23]
B
Yeah. And then there was the whole part about the cattle mutilation, which was wild. You know, how they were doing the underground testing for. They were mining.
- [24:31]
A
Is this a Myrna Hansen case? Is that. There's a. All of this was going on at this time. So there were cattle mutilations happening all in the mid and late 70s out in the Midwest and out in the Rockies. And. And Benowitz. Benowitz got like, really, really, really deep into this, that is for sure. And he hooked up with University of Wyoming Leo Sprinkle, who used to do hypnotic regressions of people. And there was a woman, her name was Myrna Hansen, and she was. God, I can't remember. Did she. She witnessed a cattle mutilation, I think cattle being lifted up, but she was also supposedly taken to an underground facility herself. And Leo Sprinkle did the regression, and Benowitz, I think, was there, and they all got really deep into this. And Benowitz eventually was committed for, at least briefly, for psychiatric evaluation. Like in the late 80s. It. This really got to him. It really messed him up, and it seriously damaged his life, it's very sad. And. And it does seem like he was being used for disinformation. Yes, I think that's absolutely true. And I wrote about this in one of my books, my second volume of history called UFOs and the National Security State. And my feeling was, you look at the mid and late 70s, and two important things were happening to threaten the secrecy of the UFO subject at that time. One was, as we mentioned, the release of documents through Freedom of Information. This was a new thing. This had never happened before. You know, in the 50s and 60s, the US Air Force could say, we don't know anything about these UFOs. I mean, it's a little bit. It's. Obviously people are making mistaken assumptions and things like this, but we're not really into that. We have this Project Blue Book, and we're not really finding any evidence of aliens and they could get away with that. Until in the late 70s, researchers were petitioning the government for documents pertaining to UFOs. And holy cow, like, they got a lot of them proving that the Air Force was lying. They were lying through their teeth for years. And so that was one thing. So the Freedom of Information act was a threat to the secrecy. And if you're, if you're on the other side of that trying to guard the secrets, you have to be thinking, what is our exposure here? What do we have to worry about is if they shake the tree enough, is something going to fall out of that tree? That's really compromising, right? What came out was compromising enough, but anything worse. So that's one problem. The other problem was this was when UFO crash retrievals were starting to become a thing in researchers. It was all in the late 70s. This all happened at once. Prong number one was FOIA. Prong number two was crash retrievals. And so we have, like, people like Stanton Friedman researching Roswell for the first time, things like this. But there were other crash retrievals that people were looking into and were revisiting. There was a researcher no longer around called Leonard Stringfield, who back in the 70s and 80s was actively cultivating ex Air Force and ex military people, getting all kinds of stories about crash retrievals. It was. It was kind of a first. Like no one was a magnet the way Stringfield was at that time. And so he started to publish his research bit by bit, you know, in these tiny little UFO journals that no one was reading, but they were coming out. And so again, if you're managing the secrecy and if there were crash retrievals, which it Looks like there certainly were. You've got to be concerned, like, how long can this go before someone actually uncovers something that's truly compromising that we do not want out? And so the theory, and I think this is probably true, is you muddy the waters and you, you put out information that would sow the seed of doubt into documents. And this is one argument about the MJ12 documents that came out in the mid-1980s. And it's possible that that's the case. And, and then the, the campaign against Paul Benowitz that we were just talking about could be part of that as well. This is like kind of the Empire Strikes Back. You know, you've got all of this, all of these threats to the empire of secrecy. And the late 70s, early 80s. They make the decision in the early 80s, like, let's, let's do something about that. And which is the case, like to this day, new documents may come out and you've already got people saying, is this real? Is this lies? Disinfo.
- [29:11]
B
It's amazing to watch.
- [29:12]
A
It's very effective.
- [29:13]
B
It's really effective. I mean, so if they were doing, if they were going to that extent with, with Richard Doty and Paul Benowitz in the. It was the 80s that was happening.
- [29:23]
A
Yeah.
- [29:23]
B
If they were doing that in the 80s, imagine what they could, what they have the ability to do now with the Internet.
- [29:29]
A
It's, it's, it's highly sophisticated, obviously, and, and very likely they've got smarter people than we do, and they're probably many, many steps ahead. I think it's very tough to deal with them. Not impossible, but. Yeah, I mean, we're going beyond UFOs here or UAP. This is in a whole array of things, I have no doubt. But the UFO subject, which is the one that I'm most interested in, I think definitely, you know, we're in an era now since 2017. New York Times and Politico, they do their articles at that time. And it kind of breaks open the space a little bit where people can talk about this a bit more without necessarily their careers being destroyed, the ridicule. So that's good. But to think then that the national security crowd is just going to walk away from the table and say, oh, yeah, here you go, here's all of our secrets. Yeah, sorry about that. We were wrong. No, that's not going to happen. There's too many, far too many reasons.
- [30:28]
B
Right.
- [30:28]
A
To maintain this and to fight every step of the way. So what I believe is happening in terms of all of this like this has been an argument for almost a decade now with a lot of people.
- [30:37]
B
Imagine what you're going to look like six months from now. Now imagine you had him's hair the whole time and how much better you could look. You're allowed to have thicker, fuller hair and HIMS is the perfect solution to bring your head back to its original greatness. Try HIMS Hair Loss Solutions and you'll be joining hundreds of thousands of subscribers who found their hair again without ever leaving the couch. Here's the deal. HIMS offers doctor approved clinically backed treatments like finasteride and minoxidil, the good stuff that's proven to actually regrow your hair in three to six months. Whether you're into chewables, pills, sprays or serums, they've got a solution that'll fit your vibe. No awkward doctor visits, no waiting rooms. Just answer a few quick questions online and a medical provider will see if the treatment is right for you. If it is, they'll ship it straight to your door for free. No insurance, no problem. One low price covers everything from treatments to ongoing care. And with hundreds of thousands of happy customers, HIMS is pretty much the go to for getting back that thicker, fuller hair and your confidence. Why wait? HIMS has you covered. Literally. Start your free online Visit today@hims.com Danny that's hs.com Danny for your personalized hair loss treatment options. Hims.com Danny results vary based on studies of topical and oral minoxidil and finasteride. Prescription products require an online consultation with a healthcare provider who will determine if a prescription is appropriate. Restrictions apply. See website for full details and important safety information. Make your hair great. Again with hymns.
- [32:07]
A
It's like, are we dealing with a covert op by the government to have a controlled and false release of UFO information to serve their needs or what I believe is we're looking at a factional struggle within that community where there are actually people who do believe in getting this information out to whatever extent they believe they want it out. I'm not sure if they even want it out fully themselves, but to some extent, but there's still the, the secrecy group, if we can call them that, that is absolutely not resolved to that at all. Not, not reconciled to that. And they will fight every step of the way.
- [32:48]
B
Yeah, I think when me, when I had Jesse Michaels in here, he was, I think he told me that as far as like all of the information that exists about this stuff on the Internet, he, he was saying only like 20% of it needs to be fake. He's like, 80 of it can be real, and still no one will ever know what to believe.
- [33:03]
A
Yeah.
- [33:03]
B
People will just fight about it.
- [33:04]
A
It's probably right. It's pro. I think it's even less than 20. That needs to be fake.
- [33:09]
B
Wow. Really?
- [33:10]
A
Yeah. I don't. I don't. I mean, I think so. Because there's always. Look, you've got trolls out there. You've got hardcore skeptical people out there.
- [33:19]
B
Oh, it's crazy.
- [33:20]
A
And they will just.
- [33:20]
B
This. Like a religion.
- [33:21]
A
Yeah. They will hammer on any. Any little thing that just seems a little off, and they'll just go after it, you know, and you could have. I mean, we just had this congressional briefing just the other day as we're. As we're recording this in the very beginning of May. You had.
- [33:37]
B
Oh, I missed that.
- [33:38]
A
Well, it was very interesting. So you had Dr. Eric Davis, who was hardly ever. Oh, I did see this.
- [33:42]
B
Okay.
- [33:42]
A
Yeah, yeah. Eric Davis, anytime he talks, you really want to listen to that man.
- [33:49]
B
But why is that?
- [33:52]
A
He's worked very closely for many years with Hal Put off. He's worked with Robert Bigelow's National Institute for Discovery Science back in the 90s and early 2000s. He is a man who interviewed Admiral Thomas r. Wilson in 2002, which was a whole big thing that came out in 2019. That was a big mess, but it was all true. Davis meets with Wilson after Wilson had retired from the Defense Intelligence Agency. He had run the dia. And this is connected. You interviewed Stephen Greer. So Stephen Greer was very much a part of this. So back in 1997, all right, Greer, Edgar Mitchell, the astronaut, and a few other individuals were going through Washington, D.C. and, and Greer, you know, look, he can be very polarizing, but he was. He was right on with this. And I will always say this. In 1997, Greer was like, there are black programs that are rogue, that deal with ET Tech, reverse engineering. They are beyond the formal control of the U.S. government. And so they're trying to get audiences with different people to talk about this. And they get to meet with Admiral Thomas R. Wilson, who is head of intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff at that time. This is April 1997. And they gives a presentation. And Wilson, and I know this is absolutely true, said, I'm going to look into this.
- [35:16]
B
The head of the Joint Chiefs.
- [35:17]
A
Yeah, well, he's head of intelligence for the Joint Chiefs. Okay, so. Or he was deputy head of intelligence for the Joint Chiefs. He then became head of intelligence for the Joint Chiefs which was head of the dia, so he was important. And he goes on a two month wild goose chase, actually, within the Pentagon's bureaucratic structure. We can go into more detail if you want, but the short version is he finds a number, not just one, several special access programs, that is ultra, ultra secret programs dealing with ET Tech. He contacts the managers of one of them and he's actually able to get a private, in person meeting with them. They are the program manager, the security manager, and the, the corporate attorney. Right. For the, for this. It was a private contractor. We don't know that. It was Lockheed, but that's what the betting money is. So he goes to meet with them and he says it is your. We're getting back to Eric Davis, I promise you.
- [36:19]
B
Okay?
- [36:20]
A
Wilson says, it is, it is your oversight that I am not overseeing this program. You need to bring me in. You don't have, you do not have proper oversight of this. And they are like, no, we're, we're fine. We don't need you. Well, that's, that's a real problem. What? And he finds out from them.
- [36:38]
B
I remember Greer telling me this.
- [36:39]
A
Yes, right. And he finds out like this is. They have a, an intact saucer. According to what they said to him, they've made painfully slow progress in understanding it. They had what's called the bigot list. B, I, G, O, T. And it's an acronym deriving from World War II. Anyway, that's the list of people who are allowed to be honest. And it's like 500 people. And Wilson is reading the list. He's recognizing very few names from the DoD. They're almost all in private industry. And he says, no, I need to be. This is part of my purview. And they're like, no, it isn't. He says, well, I'll complain. They're like, be my guest. We're not afraid. We're not afraid of you. And he did go back to D.C. he did complain. And he was threatened with his career. He was threatened he'd lose a star or two along the way and take an early retirement. And he got furious, but he ended up playing ball. So anyway, he. Because he was there with Edgar Mitchell, and there was another Navy commander named Willard Miller was part of this. And Miller, these are Navy guys. Miller, Mitchell and Wilson, they're all Navy. Apparently Wilson and Miller chatted about this after. And Miller, I guess, learned that Wilson had failed in getting access to this program. And so somehow this got back to Edgar Mitchell, the astronaut. And Mitchell was in with The National Institute for Discovery Science. That's Robert Bigelow. That's all these other guys, right? Davis, Pothoff, and many others. And so they all knew. They all knew that there was this failed attempt by the head of intelligence for the Joint Chiefs to get access to this program, and he was denied access. So it's kind of a big thing. Like, you know, you learn this fact, and you're like, how do we get to Wilson? We want to talk to him. So Wilson retires in 02, and clearly Eric Davis, who is part of the Ned's group, he's the one. He goes out and he. He interviews Wilson. He got. He. He got the scoop. And he writes up roughly 15 pages of typewritten notes of his conversation with Wilson. I am mentioning this because someone in that group, and I cannot say who it was, unfortunately.
- [38:58]
B
Oh, you know. But you cannot say it publicly.
- [38:59]
A
I knew. I read that. I read portions of that document back in 2000.
- [39:04]
B
Okay, so still six.
- [39:05]
A
Yeah, 2006. And seven. Six. Seven. 2007. And then. And I read the portion where Wilson is telling Davis this technology was not made by earth, not made by man, not by human hands. In the Davis notes, it's italicized. And I remembered reading it struck me like, it's very profound. You know, this is not made by human hands. So they all knew that. So Davis gets these notes, and the only reason those notes leaked out at all in 2019 was because of just a year and a half earlier, Edgar Mitchell had died, and his estate. Well, it got. It got leaked out. So there was a friend of the family who was able to get some of Mitchell's documents. Those documents went to Australia, and from there, they were jpegged. And by the early part of 2019, they were quietly circulating around, like, the full notes that Davis had written. And then it leaked out. It leaked out enough in the spring of 2019 that I took it upon myself to do my own little YouTube video on it. And I think that's what blew it open in June of 2019. But that's Eric Davis, like. So Eric Davis is.
- [40:26]
B
And he's also part of this legacy remote viewing program too, right? He was a part of. Put off. He was with. Put off. And. And Sarfati and all these SRI guys. Is that right?
- [40:35]
A
No, I don't think so. No. No. And I don't think Sarfati was part of the SRI thing.
- [40:38]
B
Okay.
- [40:39]
A
That's put off. And Russell Targ.
- [40:42]
B
Oh, that's it.
- [40:42]
A
Okay. I. I know and adore Russell as well. He's a. He's a wonderful man, but we can get into that, too. I. I'm not an expert in remote viewing, but my wife is a pretty damn good remote viewer.
- [40:55]
B
What?
- [40:56]
A
Yeah, I'm serious.
- [40:57]
B
Wow.
- [40:57]
A
Tracy has done some great remote views. No, seriously, great remote views. Yeah. But, no, I've been interested in that for a long time.
- [41:05]
B
Oh, it's fascinating.
- [41:06]
A
It's absolutely amazing. Yeah, it's amazing. And it's real. That is absolutely real. Yeah, it was unbelievably.
- [41:13]
B
It was wild listening to Hal just talk about that on Rogan's podcast. And I've had a lot of people talk about that on this. On this show before. And it's the way he described it with Rogan was. It was very, very cohesive. Like, it made a lot of sense the way he did.
- [41:27]
A
It's absolutely extraordinary. I'll just try to wrap up our thread.
- [41:32]
B
Yeah.
- [41:32]
A
Where were we?
- [41:33]
B
Eric Davis and the recent Congressional.
- [41:35]
A
Yeah, so, like, that was. Oh, and the reason I brought that up at all.
- [41:40]
B
Yeah.
- [41:40]
A
Davis was talking, and he's like, when you hear Eric Davis, as I said before, like, you must listen to this man. In my opinion, he has a stellar reputation. And so on the. On this briefing, he's talking about, like, yeah, there's different types of aliens that I've become aware of. And, like, he's quite explicit.
- [42:01]
B
Davis is saying this.
- [42:02]
A
Yes, absolutely. But what everyone jumped on was, unfortunately, and this is not to. To disparage Lou Elizondo, because I personally like Lou, and I respect him a lot, but he put up an image of a. What was supposed to be a ufo and, oh, looted. Yeah, yeah, it was very quickly, you know, debunked. Yeah, pretty much. It's like, you know, irrigation circles that, when you fly over, it looked like it looked like a white UFO with a shadow below. Like, if it could look like that. When I looked at it, I thought, oh, yeah, it looks like that.
- [42:33]
B
I see these things on X on Twitter all the time, and I just, like, sometimes I just don't have time to scroll. Right.
- [42:37]
A
No, exactly.
- [42:38]
B
So I saw what you're referring to, though.
- [42:40]
A
Yeah, that got very quickly, and people were just hammering. But, like, the whole point is, like, all right, people can make mistakes, and maybe you could say, like, you shouldn't make the mistake. Okay, fine, whatever. But I don't think that any of that was in bad faith at all. I absolutely believe he did that in good faith. And it was just. It was a mistake and you shouldn't have made it. But. Okay, but this is what. Excuse me, you're hearing people you know, focus on. I'm talking about the skeptics now. You got Davis with these amazing statements. You had Admiral Tim Gallaudet during the briefing with very impressive statements. And Christopher Mellon, who's always on point, made very good things, had very good things to say and more. Mike Gold of NASA. But they, they focused on this mistaken photograph the whole time. Well, the debunkers, I mean, that's what they'll do. You know, they'll look.
- [43:31]
B
I see what you're saying.
- [43:32]
A
They look for the one little thing rather than you look at the big picture of what these other individuals are saying. It's.
- [43:37]
B
What did you take away from that whole thing?
- [43:39]
A
Well, we are. If you think about the news stories that have come out in the last week from our. From this moment that I'm here with.
- [43:45]
B
You, today is what day is May 5th? Monday. May 5th. Cinco de Mayo, baby.
- [43:49]
A
Yeah, that's right. Just a little over a week ago, I think Jesse Michael put out his Harold Malmgren interview. How Harold Malmgren, Fascinating man. This is a guy who is advisor to four US Presidents, including Kennedy, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford.
- [44:06]
B
What?
- [44:06]
A
Yeah, he was 89 years old and then died immediately after this interview with Jesse. When you get.
- [44:13]
B
I mean everyone pull that up.
- [44:14]
A
Steve.
- [44:15]
B
I gotta see this.
- [44:16]
A
Busy. No one has time. But that is a hell of an interview. And Mall Ingram, he got very sick immediately after this and he died shortly after that. But you listen to this man. He was a brilliant economist, maybe genius level. I mean absolutely top notch intellect. And he was razor sharp during this interview. So he was, he was great.
- [44:39]
B
Was he whacked?
- [44:41]
A
I doubt it. I mean, I don't. I don't think so, you know. But anyway, what he said, we're seeing pulled up here.
- [44:48]
B
Yeah, I touched the UFO 12 days ago. Wow.
- [44:51]
A
Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, we had that story then we had. Trying to get these in order. Oh, Matthew Brown, who's the latest we can say whistleblower. Interviewed by Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp. Very interesting guy. And then we had, we had, we had put off on Rogan. We had the congressional briefing and then just yesterday there is a new, A new one. And I don't know how powerful this is or not, but. Dr. Gregory. Oh man. Gregory. This was put out in the Daily Mail by Josh Boone. No, Josh, forgive me. He's a friend. I like him. It'll come. Anyway, that came out in the Daily Mail.
- [45:38]
B
What was it about? Was the.
- [45:40]
A
He was. He was An Air Force major and he was a NASA doctor. He's looking for it. Dr. Gregory Rogers.
- [45:48]
B
Rogers.
- [45:48]
A
And it's by. I want to give Josh's props. He deserves it.
- [45:51]
B
Click on the link. Maybe, maybe it'll be in there.
- [45:54]
A
Scroll. Josh Boswell.
- [45:56]
B
Josh Boswell. Okay.
- [45:57]
A
Yeah, yeah, he, he and Christopher Sharp, they're both very good, younger journalists who do very good work on this. Anyway, so this man, Gregory Rogers was a NASA doctor, worked on a number of shuttle missions and said in 1992, he's down by Cape Canaveral, I think, and he saw a CCTV footage of. He was shown this by another Air Force officer of a flying saucer that had USAF markings on it. U.S. air Force flying saucer. He said this thing did things that we, we did not have the ability to do. Tilt at an angle while hovering. Rotate this way, rotate that way. But he supposedly, and look, this has not been vetted. I mean, you know, but this is all just new stuff. He said. I was, I asked him where do we get this? And he said the guy just pointed up and indicating it was like from up there, from outer space. So it's, it's a new story. Is it true? Is it not true? I don't know. But think of this. In the last less than two weeks those, all of those have come out. Like that's profound. That's powerful stuff.
- [47:09]
B
Yeah.
- [47:10]
A
More than a decade ago you would have had to wait. Like there would have been years in between stories like that.
- [47:16]
B
Yeah. And they would have gotten drinking from a fire hose.
- [47:20]
A
Exactly. So, so I don't remember why I got into all this, but yeah, I.
- [47:26]
B
Asked you just like what your, your, what your ultimate takeaway was from that recent congressional thing with Eric Davis and all those guys.
- [47:32]
A
Well, we're looking at a kind of pile on effect, you know, with the momentum of all of this, these new revelations, new claims. Maybe it might be a better way to put it, but yeah, more and more new information is absolutely coming out at a rate that is unprecedented. We've never in all of the, of UFO research. And that's, this is something I, I can speak very confidently about. There has never been anything like the time that we're in now. This is, this is unprecedented. And where it will lead is a really good question.
- [48:03]
B
Yeah, yeah. So, so over the last couple months, I mean like my emotional, my emotions on this whole topic vary. It's like I ride this roller coaster of emotions on the UFO topic from being a, I get burnt out on it super easily.
- [48:18]
A
Yeah.
- [48:19]
B
I get like this UFO fatigue. And then I also go back and forth between like, is it really aliens, Is it time travelers, Is it darpa? And like, you know, my recent thing has been like, this is just, this has to be all just military bullshit mixed with Internet psychological psyops or just like, like, like you just alluded. Feeding us this fire hose of misinformation just to get everyone confused so nobody can. No, like it doesn't matter what the truth is because there's just. Everything's out there and everyone's fighting about it. There's too much noise and no signal.
- [48:54]
A
Yeah, I'm very sympathetic to that. And as far as the burnout goes, I totally, I've done this for 30 years.
- [48:59]
B
Right.
- [49:00]
A
And my wife could tell you, like when it's after dinner time, I almost like I have to think about other things. I can't, I can't do UFOs.
- [49:08]
B
Yeah.
- [49:09]
A
Like in the old days I would go to like 2, 3 in the morning, just like. And nowadays like I do it in the morning and the afternoons and then I have to, I have to end it.
- [49:17]
B
Yeah.
- [49:18]
A
I have to have other things going on in my life. So I, I can sympathize with that. But as far as like what's going on. The reason that I, I still, I very much believe that the significant portion of this phenomenon is from non human intelligence. The reason I believe that is I look at the earliest history of this, particularly the earth, like post World War II. But even there are some very, I would say good, not perfect, but good accounts from prior to World War II that are worth looking at as well. And so when you look at some of these early cases and then particularly when you read the declassified documents that I mentioned earlier that are available, it's hard for me to square that with a secret US black budget project. It just doesn't. Because all the intelligence officers that we know of at the time in the 40s were looking into this and there just is, there's nothing that I have seen that really make even. You mentioned Joseph Farrell's work.
- [50:23]
B
Yeah.
- [50:23]
A
Were we on camera when we talked about Joe?
- [50:25]
B
Were we, Steve? I don't remember. Well, anyways, we were talking about Joseph Farrell before this thing started.
- [50:30]
A
And I'm a friend of Joe's and I respect and admire his work a lot. But I don't even think that he has made a clear cut case that it's definitely all like, you know, third. Third Reich tech and all of that.
- [50:44]
B
I mean there's definitely the Horton brothers, which was yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [50:48]
A
There's Horton Brothers and, and I think now I think we're seeing more and more support for the idea of a 1933 Italian recovery. Italian.
- [51:02]
B
This is, I think Grush talked about this. Right?
- [51:04]
A
Grush talked about it. Malm, Grimm Malgren in his interview with Jesse Michaels and Eric Davis in his congressional briefing talked about it. So we're seeing all these different perspectives coming in on this. The real man who researched this is an Italian researcher named Roberto Pinotti who looked at a lot of the original documents that do exist in Italian from 1933. And interesting. So I think, yes, like this goes back farther in time than a lot of the American researchers. Like, because we're so American centered. It's like Roswell. It all starts there. No, no, I think there's Even in the US there were prior cases to Roswell, but certainly this 1933 case.
- [51:49]
B
So you think the, the fact that these cases, or crash recoveries, retrievals, whatever you want to call them, they go back so far earlier than the, the 1940s. You think that points to it being of non human origin just because of how advanced it was and how early?
- [52:05]
A
I, I think so. That's what I, that's what I believe in.
- [52:07]
B
And where, where do you think they would have come from? I know we're being super speculative here. I'm just saying, like if you.
- [52:13]
A
I would say another planet.
- [52:14]
B
Another planet.
- [52:15]
A
Or, or there's a couple of different ways to look at this. So, you know, Hal put off, wrote a very interesting paper a number of years ago on ultra terrestrials, this.
- [52:26]
B
Yeah.
- [52:27]
A
Concept. And it's a, it's a very interesting paper. Highly recommend people read it. And I think his take, and he just mentioned this the other day in his interview, but maybe there's been a group that's been here a long time that originally comes from elsewhere. They've set up shop in some manner which I think is a totally possible. I would imagine that the extraterrestrial hypothesis actually still makes more sense to me than anything else. I mean, we can get attracted to interdimensional theories, but does anyone actually even understand what another dimension would be like? How does that work? How do they materialize? Maybe it's possible, but I don't really understand how that's possible. I can understand how it could be possible, even despite the vast distances to go interstellar, if you can manipulate space time in some way, bending space time. We have math for that guy named Miguel Alcubierre in the 90s, apparently came up with some Version of warp drive. Mathematically, the problem is finding the amount of energy.
- [53:34]
B
Yes.
- [53:35]
A
Sufficient to do it.
- [53:36]
B
But same thing with. I think that's the same thing with time travel, right?
- [53:39]
A
I think so, yeah.
- [53:40]
B
You know, so I love, I love Michael Master's time travel theory.
- [53:44]
A
Yeah. I don't know if I've. I'm on top of that one. So maybe you can, you can educate me. But. But I guess I'll just say I think the fact that they come from another place still makes the most sense to me. The fact that we would be of interest makes a lot of sense to me. The fact that Earth would be a very interesting place also makes a lot of sense to me. I think all of that makes perfect sense. That if you have the ability, if you've achieved a technological capability to detect advanced life elsewhere, which I don't see that as impossible at all. I mean, we're already looking at exoplanetary systems and looking for life signatures. And we just started with this business. So if you've been doing this for a thousand years or more, maybe you can detect consciousness. You know, you can go. We talked about remote viewing. Could they actually have the ability to detect advanced consciousness? I don't know. Maybe they can. Or maybe there are other technologies that we just haven't can envision. So they could find us and then could they get to us? Yeah, probably. I don't see why not. At least in theory. I think it could be entirely possible. And we would be interesting because a. There could be a lot of life in this universe, but how common really would planets like ours be? We have. We're in the Goldilocks zone, But it takes a lot more than that.
- [55:11]
B
Right.
- [55:12]
A
We have the moon is. We have the moon.
- [55:14]
B
Incredible.
- [55:15]
A
Which is, it's, it's. What's the story?
- [55:19]
B
It's the perfect terraforming device. It's one. I think it's 1/20 the size of the sun and 1/20 the distance from the sun. I think I'm getting that math.
- [55:28]
A
Oh, it's a lot less than 120 at the side.
- [55:30]
B
Maybe. Maybe I'm getting that math wrong, Steve. Maybe you can correct me with the. The fractions there. Anyways, the fractions are exact. The exact size comparison to the sun and the exact distance from the sun. Sun is equal. So it creates that perfect eclipse. And so that makes.
- [55:44]
A
Yeah, that's actually, that's an amazing thing. If that's, if, if that's a significant part. The fact that it's a stabilizer of our environment is Very significant. It's. It's always got one side turned to the Earth. That's. I can't remember the word for that, but that could be significant.
- [55:59]
B
Totally locked.
- [56:00]
A
Yeah, Todd. Thank you.
- [56:01]
B
Steve. What's the fractions of the distance, the distance ratio and the size ratio. Find that, and then it is, you know, it is the perfect terraforming device for us.
- [56:11]
A
And, yeah, it's sun size and distance ratio. There you go. You could figure that out.
- [56:17]
B
Let us know, Steve. That's your homework assignment.
- [56:20]
A
But we also have water and land, but we're not completely covered in water either. So we have enough water for life to evolve in the water, but then we have enough land out of the water that life can crawl up and evolve on land. You know, I mean, that's kind of an interesting thing right there. And we've had enough stability over hundreds of millions of years that we can allow complex life to develop on. I mean, yeah, that's. That can't be very common now, the universe is big enough that you could think, all right, maybe one out of a million systems might have something like this, or whatever it is. And that could still be enough to develop advanced life. And which I think I come to believe. I'm not a. I'm not an expert in this at all, but I tend to think that life anywhere is going naturally to want to increase its complexity just because life competes with other life for resources and energy and food. And that intelligence is one necessary evolutionary adaptation that would be useful for any life form and, and not just humans. Dinosaurs were intelligent. Hell, not. Not maybe compared to us, but compared to previous life forms, they probably were. Intelligence is always increasing.
- [57:41]
B
Yes.
- [57:42]
A
And, you know, our body plan just allowed us to hit the sweet spot. We developed these hands that can do things and manipulate our environment, and that further increased our intelligence, I believe. So I think, I think life naturally will do that, given the proper conditions.
- [57:58]
B
Right.
- [57:59]
A
And I'm going to guess that, you know, in enough parts of the universe, those conditions have existed so that you then develop life. And then it gets to the critical point where it develops its own ability to kind of manage itself, which we're maybe kind of doing. And we're developing artificial strong AI and all the other technologies that will go along with it. Nanotech and who the hell knows what quantum computing and what kind of crazy, diabolical mixture will come out of all of that. And I think that that's probably what, what other life forms have done, because I. I suspect that, that what life, what intelligent life will do is it is guided by the requirements of constantly developing that intelligence. In other words, it's not about, like, our society isn't about the human race anymore. It's really about meeting the needs of the demands of a highly integrated, digitally advanced, artificially intelligent system of which we are now just a part. Like, we think it's working for us, but I think we're serving the system. And we're serving the system that is becoming ever more complex. And that intelligence will just kind of take off on its own, because I think it's the intelligence that's the dominant factor, not necessarily our biological contribution to it.
- [59:25]
B
Interesting.
- [59:25]
A
Yeah. I mean, I don't know if anyone actually ever thinks that or if I'm the only person, but this is what I've come to believe. Like, we serve the system that we have helped to create, but really we're just. We are simply actors. We're just.
- [59:43]
B
We're the caterpillar.
- [59:44]
A
Yeah. We're like the servants of. Of what high intelligence demands. And we're. That's what we're doing.
- [59:52]
B
What do you think we look like? What do you think human beings or what comes out of human beings ends up being in like 50 to 100 years?
- [60:01]
A
Well, it all depends on.
- [60:03]
B
It's summertime, boys. And you know the instant you step outside, that sweat's going to be on you like morning dew. And the humidity doesn't help for me. I've become a human petri dish of stench. If you've been struggling with the heat and humidity, I have great news. Today's sponsor, Mando, has just launched something that takes sweat control to the next level. Introducing Mando Deodorant plus Sweat Control. Solid stick. It's double protection. Finally, you can kick the sweat and smell good doing it. This has been a godsend for me, especially in Florida during the summertime when I do a lot of activities outside, including going to the parks, recreational sports. Just a walk through the parking lot will have me smelling like a dumpster. But when I use the new Mando deodorant, I almost smell too good to be true. This ain't your typical deodorant. It's clinical strength and two times more effective at controlling sweat. It kicks sweat and odor for over 72 hours. Even after 12 hours, sweat was still reduced by 92%. Mando is known for using premium ingredients like gentle mandelic acid. Mando Deodorant plus Sweat Control Solid Stick. Don't wait. Grab yours today@shopmando.com and experience double protection. Mando Starter pack is perfect for new customers. It comes with a solid stick deodorant cream tube deodorant. Two free products of your choice like mini body wash and deodorant wipes and free shipping. And as a special offer for our listeners, new customers can get $5 off the starter pack with our exclusive code that equates to over 40% off your starter pack. Use the code Danny D A N n y@shopmando.com that's s h O P M A N D O.com Please support the show and tell them we sent you with deodorant plus sweat control. Mando's got you covered. Say goodbye to sweat stains and hello to long lasting freshness.
- [61:43]
A
You know, because all that we do is we adapt to the environments that we live in and we are now radically changing our own environment technologically in all different ways. And so clearly you're seeing probably a speeding up of, of human evolution is probably happening, right? I think it is.
- [62:03]
B
Right.
- [62:04]
A
Experts would be better able to say this than me, but I think it's quite, I mean, look, even in technology, right? Yeah. In the last 10,000 years, we're not the same as we were back then. So. And we've domesticated ourselves. It's just like you look at domesticated sheep as opposed to wild sheep. Well, domesticated humans as opposed to wild humans.
- [62:22]
B
Right.
- [62:22]
A
Before we started settling in large communities and societies roughly 10,000 years ago. So we're going on a path and so what we're going to look like. The problem with our future is that every new technological leap you make, whether it's mastering the use of fire or stone tools or now working at it, getting to AGI and whatever else we're going to get to means that you become dependent on that for your species survival. Like honestly, like once we've had fire for like a couple hundred thousand years, right. It would be very difficult to probably for those people to survive without it. Yes, because you become dependent on it. And then not only that, but the fact that you have fire means you have to develop all these other technologies because we have to maintain the fire, we have to protect the fire, we have to find and process the right kinds of wood, like all of that, that, that prompts further intellectual development. Same with stone tools and all that. So once you develop that, you have to maintain it. And now we're so, so deeply embedded in our technology. Can you imagine, you know, Spain and Portugal just went without electricity for five hours last week. 5. I have a sister who lives in Seville.
- [63:45]
B
And trust me, I live in Florida. I had to go through a lot of hurricanes.
- [63:48]
A
Exactly. So. But they were like. They were freaking out, man. They were not. They were not happy. So imagine if we had to go without electric. Forget Internet, just electricity.
- [63:59]
B
Yeah, it sucks even worse.
- [64:01]
A
For a week, two weeks, a month, forever.
- [64:04]
B
It would suck.
- [64:05]
A
It would. It would more than suck. Most people would probably not live.
- [64:09]
B
You know, going back to this, you know, this technology, conversation and the evolution of human beings is really. It's something I've been thinking about a lot recently. And it really came. It was interesting because I think Hal and Rogan touched on it a little bit on their conversation. But, you know, one of the ideas that I've been throwing around is the idea of, like, this. This ESP telekinesis, having these senses that are not apparent in everybody, but they're kind of like extra. Some people have. Have them more than other people, and especially when it comes to things like remote viewing and esp. So, like, ancient human beings, right before we had the development of language, before we had the technology to record memories externally, and, you know, when we constantly were trying to avoid predators to stay alive, and before we had anything like. I'm sure we had some sort of extra senses that have atrophied since we've developed. Okay, language, since we've developed computers, we don't have to memorize anymore. Everything's on a computer or iPhone. And you know what I mean?
- [65:21]
A
Absolutely.
- [65:21]
B
So I feel like that is radically. We have senses that are radically. Have been diminished, diminished and atrophied over millennia.
- [65:30]
A
My wife and I talk about this a lot. This is like our. One of our pet theories that we've been hashing around for a couple of years. Excuse me. I totally believe that that's the case. We actually are. The brain capacity of the human being today is less than it was among our ancestors even more than 10,000 years ago. I think it's like the amount of a golf ball or no more than that. I think maybe a baseball amount of a brain. We have less. We have a little bit less. That doesn't mean that we're less intelligent. It just means that domestication has enabled us to need less because the brain's expensive. I mean, in terms of energy, like, it's. It's not free. And so you. You have to have a reason for it. It's got to provide an evolutionary benefit for you to use it. And very like. I think that you're right. I think that's true. Like, we've probably atrophied. And what that of course this is, this is material that I'm just barely. I shouldn't even really talk about. But you hear people talking about microtubules in the brain and the ability to access qu. Information in some way. And I'm probably saying this wrong in countless ways, but, but essentially that we have the capacity to perceive some various forms of non locality, you know, things that are far away that logically you wouldn't think we were able to perceive. But hell, remote viewing proves that you can. And I think it's a fair theory or a fair notion that our ancestors did a better job at this than we do.
- [67:07]
B
And another thing about. Okay, so, so we were just talking about how like there's other Goldilocks planets and there might be, there definitely are, we know of that are really, really far away. But like we are so rare in this solar system. All the different species that exist on Earth I think out of. So this is kind of getting into what Mike Masters explained to me. He's a anthropologist and he was explaining to me there's over 2 million species of animals.
- [67:34]
A
I didn't mean to interrupt you. Isn't he the one who. Am I getting my people mixed up? He came up with a paper about a year or two ago that got a lot of attention and I, I should stop. I. I'm probably getting it wrong. Anyway. Keep going please.
- [67:47]
B
Yeah, yeah. So he's an anthropologist and he and his, and he's wrote a bunch of books on, on his, his, I think his. It's not his most recent one, but one of them is called the extra tempestrial model. And he basically explains, you know, having a background in, in this stuff and evolution is that there's 200 species of. There's 200 or 2 million cataloged species on planet Earth. Out of the 2 million, 20 of them are hominids. Out of the 20 hominids, we are the ones that develop technology that was able to escape the Earth. So we are like.0001% of all species human beings on Earth. So that is extremely rare for Earth, which is an extremely rare planet. Being such a, you know, having the moon the way it is being this, having so much water and land being inhabitable. Teeming. So now let's go look at all the other Goldilocks plants that we know of that are so far away. How, how many of them have the same gravity, the same atmosphere, the same. How many of them are water worlds or not? And what is the likelihood that those beings that Evolve on that planet, that Goldilocks planet are going to be exactly like the.00001%.
- [68:56]
A
Right.
- [68:57]
B
That ended up being human beings on this planet. So he's like, basically the case he made was it's virtually impossible, impossible for them to have two arms, two, two legs, upright walking hominids there.
- [69:05]
A
I disagree, I, I disagree with that. Okay, respectfully, because I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. But no, I think that our body plan is probably not unique to us. And I think if you're going to. Again, I think, because what life does, life evolves and life adapts. And so if the necessary thing that you have to have is an ecosystem that can support enough diversity of life for this to happen. And yes, you need water and you need land, you need both. And so it's going to be very rare. Like, I completely agree with all of that. I think that's entirely right. But the fact that our body plan is an anomaly, I don't agree with that. I think our body plan is probably, I don't really, you know, do we really truly understand what is the mechanism of evolution? What is it really? Is it truly just random mutation or is there something else going on? And I'm not going to pretend that I have that answer, but I think that somehow life. Didn't Jeff Goldblum say this in Jurassic Park? Life finds a way. And I think that life does find a way through adaptation, through the need for survival and luck. Yeah, but like this is. If you're going to engage in planetary domination of any capacity, honestly, I think this plan, this body plan of ours might just be the best way to do it. Because what you need is an ability to manipulate your environment. That's key. And so hands and fingers are perfect for manipulating environment. What's better than that? I don't know of anything that's been better. And then the thing is, once our, you know, australopithecine distant ancestors of 4 million years ago or 3 million years ago, they realized, oh, I can break this stone. Wow, this is really useful. So that encourages further intellectual development. Just, just even napping stones, it's like that's a skill. So you're working cognitively here. And so I think adaptations. I don't think it's impossible that life would form adaptations similar to our own, that you would have humanoid beings and other that develop that way in other planets. You know, I just think that I remember as a kid reading like what certain scientists thought like life elsewhere would look like and Some of those ideas were kind of, kind of goofy when I look at them now. And I don't think they make a lot of sense because a body has to be efficient and it's gotta. And so you're looking at all of these different factors that go into it. And it seems to me that bipedal standing upright with a couple of extra hands to do your job, like, that's really, that's quite useful. And I could imagine that happening elsewhere.
- [72:01]
B
What do you got, Steve?
- [72:02]
A
Oh, the crab species convergence.
- [72:04]
B
Yeah, it's similar to what he was talking about. Like you have five different species that have independently grown crab like bodies. That's just what works in the ocean for little creatures like that. Independently unrelated.
- [72:15]
A
Yeah, it's convergent evolution.
- [72:17]
B
Yes. Yeah.
- [72:20]
A
Which means basically species that have, are not related to each other can, due to the environments that they live in, develop very similar. Yeah, like, you know, bats can fly as well as insects can fly and birds and that type of thing.
- [72:36]
B
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. When I brought this up to Greer, he was, he was explaining to me he believes it has something to do with morphic resonance, this theory by Rupert Sheldrake. To win there's. It's like some sort of a quantum idea. It's a, it's a quantum theory, essentially. So I guess one of the examples that Sheldrake used was this. A monkey on one side of the world discover some sort of technology, figures out how to crack a, crack some. A coconut open with a rock or whatever. And at the same time, this quantum. In this quantum field, the monkeys on the opposite side of the world figure out the same thing. So he thinks that might tie into evolution between planets. He said this isn't just on the Earth.
- [73:14]
A
Yeah, hey, I'd entertain that. I mean, yeah, you know, there's the secret life of plants, which came out over 50 years ago, which talks about like there's all different ways we know that. We know that fungi under the ground are somehow. I don't understand. It can be a means of communication among plants.
- [73:35]
B
Right.
- [73:35]
A
All right, so how does that work? I don't know. So they're something like that. Could, sure, why not?
- [73:42]
B
Steve, what'd you find about the sun? Anything? Yeah. Come up with a goose egg on that. I got a ratio that I don't understand. Oh, come on.
- [73:52]
A
Well, it's certainly less than 120.
- [73:55]
B
It's a 1 to 43,000. Is the, is the moon's ratio to the what? The distance to the sun and the Earth is similar at 1 to 11,700. I don't know what that means. I don't know. Google, what's the distance? What is the distance of the Earth to the sun? All right, we're not going to waste time on this. It. I gave up. So how. So explain to me what made you want to start working on this project involving USOS specifically.
- [74:37]
A
Yeah, one of the most rewarding little rabbit holes I've ever gone down. So I have, I mean I've had a long standing interest. USO simply means unidentified submerged objects, water based UFOs or water based UAP. That's it. And you know, I've, I'd heard of this type of phenomenon for many, many years. It's always been very interesting. I mean, to me, intrinsically, it's interesting to hear a story about an object that comes out of the ocean.
- [75:07]
B
Yeah.
- [75:07]
A
Making a big display like that. And I thought, I mean, how many, how many of these stories exist? I have a website with a lot of amazing members and they'll ask me questions. One person asked me a question about a particular case from 1945 near the Aleutian Islands, a little island called Adak island out there. And there is a case from the summer of 1945 where a US transport ship, World War, the Pacific War, was still happening. They were returning from Japan to Seattle and they were by the Aleutians. And apparently an object appeared to have come out of the water. Disc shaped object, circles around the ship twice and then takes off. So that was a case that was somewhat known to me and it's known to other researchers. And I just did like a little bit of extra research and I'll put together like a little video, things like that from my website. But I got really intrigued by it and I thought to myself, this is back, this is three years ago. So in 2022 I thought, what other good cases are there? Like, I just wanted to pull them together. And I started to realize there were a couple of books that had been done on this. It was booked back in 1970 by an American researcher named Ivan Sanderson. A very good book. There was another very good book by the recently deceased researcher named Carl Find, who wrote a very good book on water and UFOs but not much else. There was a couple of others here and there and I thought, I want to collect them. How many can I find? Like that was where I started and are they good? And, and I just got more and more into it. I started doing more of these little mini presentations for my website and it just became, by the summer of 2022, it was kind of a mania. And I thought, I'll see if I'll do a book, see what I come up with. And that turned out into what will be a three volume project. The first volume I just published a couple months ago and that. And that will be followed by the other two, which will be out this year. I've collected about 700 cases. There's many more than that, I've no doubt. I eliminated quite a few in looking for them because I really wanted cases that had some meat on the bone so that you could kind of work with and give a good description of. So I've got about just under 700 from around the world. And some of them go back kind of far, not, not into the distant, distant ancient. The first really good case that I consider good is actually only from 1717, so like 300 years ago. It's pretty good case though. And then they become better over the years, a lot more detail. And I just started collecting them. I wanted to breathe like fresh life. 99 of them are completely forgotten, even by like experienced researchers. I think they're just completely. They've gone by the boards and I thought they deserve, they deserve a fresh retelling of them. And I wanted to do that. And then it just morphed into more and more things. I ended up getting a really great illustrator, a man named Alan Levine, who's a wonderful man and did beautiful illustrations for this project. And I did a bunch of other things. I wanted to put each one on a map. I did that and I ended up doing a statistical analysis that I did not anticipate doing when I started, but that became kind of a significant thing too. And that taught me more about this phenomenon. Just looking at some of the statistics that seem to jump out at me. So all in all, you're seeing this phenomenon evolve over especially the last couple of hundred years. It's like a little dance where they're observing us, we're observing them, and, and there is reason to believe that they're, that they adapted, that they've adapted some of their behaviors due to our radical transformation of our own technology, especially over the last century. I mean, it's kind of an amazing thing. You know, you think of where we were in the oceans a little over 100 years ago. We, the first operational submarine didn't deploy until the year 1900. And that was just like, you know, barely able to get in there. So we were, we were not really going deep into the water right until the 20th century.
- [79:32]
B
So now we have hundreds of them circling the oceans loaded with nuclear warheads.
- [79:38]
A
Exactly, exactly. So that's a major, like imagine you're them, let's say you, you are them. You're here, you're watching these humans, these observant, intelligent, multi fingered humans who can manipulate their environment, who are now organized into these collective aggressive communities we call nations, peering over the fence of each other with deadly weapons that could end the entire planet's existence. And you're watching this and you're realizing, okay, so they're probably this far away from developing strong AI, from quantum computing and from leaping into our world. Like when's that going to happen? Right, because like you can see the whole trajectory, you know that like a few generations ago they were all living in wooden huts and now, wow, like.
- [80:24]
B
Here we are to reach the singularity.
- [80:26]
A
Yes, exactly. So I have little doubt that any observing intelligence, like they can see this whole thing play out. And so they're watching. But, but I have no doubt that we have our own little unique variations on the theme of developing intelligence. Maybe we're more aggressive, maybe we're not as, I don't know, but we're certainly very aggressive with each other. We're highly territorial. So they're watching all of this and they're seeing, you know, 1950s, we start developing nuclear submarines that can stay underwater basically forever. And we're now we develop these underground sonar systems that are mapping all activity or increasingly more and more underwater activity, including anomalous activity. Right. Not just Soviet or Russian subs, but everything.
- [81:15]
B
Yeah.
- [81:16]
A
And so they have to adapt. And I think when I was looking at the statistics of this, this whole thing happened because I finished writing all the cases and I'm talking to my wife and she's like, you know, it'd be a great idea if, if for each case you had like a bunch of categories so that someone could just like look at the categories, like what color was the craft, what shape was the craft, what was it doing with the water? Was it under the water? Did it emerge from the water? How close are the witnesses? And I'm like, damn it, that's a really good idea. I didn't want to do it because it was a lot of extra work. I had to go back over every case and siphon out that information. But it was a great idea and I did do it and I'm very glad I did it because then that allowed me to put all of that into a spreadsheet and look at like almost 700 cases. And like 20, it's a big spreadsheet.
- [82:06]
B
So it's like a database.
- [82:07]
A
Yeah. And anyone can download. It's a free download. I have linked on my website. You can go check it out. But basically I'm an amateur with statistical analysis. I can't pretend that I'm some genius at it. But you can still see things. So one thing I noticed is one category was I broke it down into day or night. Simple. Did this happen when the sun was out or when it was dark? Very simple. Little metric there. And one thing I noticed was that up until around 1967, 68, it was almost exactly 50, 50 day versus night. And then suddenly starting in the late 60s.
- [82:44]
B
USOS.
- [82:45]
A
Yeah, USOS. Exactly. Starting in the late 60s, it goes to 75% at night. And it was, it remained that to this day. 75% now, I mean, does that mean I just have too small a data sample and I need to get more cases and maybe. Could it be that I, I was just somehow not selecting a broad spectrum of cases? I mean, all of that's possible? I don't think so. I try to pick what I thought were the best and most meaty cases and something seems to have happened in the late 60s.
- [83:18]
B
How do you go about mining all this information? Do you just look for and just scrub the Internet for cases involving USOs or do you interview specific people? Ask them a.
- [83:28]
A
Of both.
- [83:29]
B
Okay.
- [83:29]
A
Mostly. Mostly pulling out the information from. There are a couple of websites where there's a lot of information. So one is the National UFO Reporting center that's run by a very wonderful man named Peter Davenport who's run it for years. And they've got 100,000 or more cases there that he's collected going back many, many years. So that's, that's important. Muon. The Mutual UFO Network has a database which I was. They graciously allowed me to use their database, which is nice because I'm not a MUFON investigator. But they, they knew what kind of work I was doing and they said, yes, you can. And then I mentioned Carl Find earlier. He had a website where he collected a bunch of these cases. So I looked at all of those and then there's books and like out of print magazines from the 1970s that I'd look for and just get them and find these cases.
- [84:21]
B
Where are people seeing these uf USO for the most part. Is there, is there, is there one spot in the world where they seem to be most mostly condensed to or confined to. And second, second question is what kind of people are reporting these?
- [84:35]
A
Yeah, there are hot spots. We probably part of the problem with USOs is we're all like, we live on the land, we're landlubbers. And so usually you're not out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. So that's a problem right there. Navies are, the US Navy is. But they don't like to talk. You'll get Navy stories from some Navy guy like 20, 30 or more years after they retire when sometimes anonymously they will report something to some website somewhere like that happens. And I've tried to collect all of those. They're very interesting. But basically we are, you know, so when people see these, they're usually on the coast or maybe they're on a lake or a river. But if it's an ocean base, which is most of them along the coast, that's where people.
- [85:21]
B
What about like oil rigs?
- [85:24]
A
Yeah, a couple of them. There's a good one from the Gulf of Mexico. Am I a Gulf of America? Golf of Mexico?
- [85:29]
B
Gulf of America, brother. That's where we are right there. Golf's right there.
- [85:32]
A
Exactly. So one of my. There's quite a few from the Gulf here. Quite a few. And one of my favorite ones. This is from the National UFO Reporting center from 2017. It's not that long ago a guy operating on a rig rode into New Fork the website and he described this. He said, I was with a bunch of other guys on our rig and there was another rig, he said, a couple of miles over this way and in between this humongous, gargantuan like football field plus size object comes out of the water, dripping water, flying saucer, disco ball field. That's what he wrote. We're watching it drip water, we're kind of blown away and it just zips off. It's gone. Now. How do you investigate that? It's almost impossible. So Peter Davenport wrote as an addendum to this case, he said, I spoke with the witness on the phone. Peter will do that sometimes. He said, I found him to be highly credible, highly this and that. And like apparently this was a very well spoken, believable individual. Peter found him incredible. And that's really all that we have on this. But it's pretty interesting story. And I, I tend, I mean I read the account and that's one of the cases that goes into the third volume of my study.
- [86:48]
B
Did that corroborate any other accounts? Were there any other similar accounts with football fields? Really?
- [86:55]
A
Yeah. Also not just USOs, but you get UFO cases of gargantuan sized objects that have been reported over, over the years. You wonder like what are they doing? It's like a small city, you know.
- [87:06]
B
It'S the best place to hide. It really is.
- [87:09]
A
The oceans are. Yeah. You know, there's a really great guy named Dr. Kevin Newth out there. He's teaching.
- [87:15]
B
I've heard of that.
- [87:16]
A
Yeah, yeah. Kevin's a really good man. He teaches at Albany and in New York State.
- [87:22]
B
I think he's on our list. Steve, he's coming on the podcast. Is he really?
- [87:26]
A
Yeah, he's good, good, good shout out to Kevin. Well, yeah, he, he made a really, really good insight on this. And he just said look, you know, look at the ocean. So a lot of things about it. First of all, it's non compressible. In other words, the pressure is constant. So that could be, that could be helpful. It's, it's certainly protective. Like if you are from a place where maybe our solar radiation is not necessarily the right thing for you, you come from somewhere else. Ocean is a protective place for that. It's temperature variations are far less in the ocean than they would be above the ocean. And a lot of other things. He said, you know, there's a lot of good reasons to. If you are from somewhere else. What if you are from a water.
- [88:11]
B
Right.
- [88:12]
A
Society?
- [88:12]
B
Sure.
- [88:13]
A
Well, the oceans might be. Feel like home. So there are good reasons. And then of course there's also human.
- [88:18]
B
Skies are just littered with airplanes. So that's, there's that.
- [88:22]
A
Yeah. And, and if you, if you are interested in these human creatures, well, you know that they live on the land. So we might hang out in the ocean, stay out of the way. So there's good reasons that the oceans would be providing you have the technology to do it. But if you've got that, then sure, why not? The. You asked for hotspots, so I'll answer that one is Puerto Rico. And particularly, I think, I think all around Puerto Rico really especially the, the east, west and northern coasts. The southern coast. Yeah. But I think I just haven't found as many. But along the, you get like northwest Aguadilla man, or you go out to the east. The US Navy's got a big presence at a place called Roosevelt Roads there facing Vieque Island. There's a lot of activity there. But north of the island you've got the great Puerto Rico trench which goes almost 30,000ft down. It's like, it's super deep and we cannot, we can't get down there. But there Are.
- [89:25]
B
I'm sorry, how deep did you say it was?
- [89:27]
A
About 20, 28, 29,000ft. I think maybe close to 30,000ft. So you're talking almost six miles down. It's not quite as deep as the Mariana Trench in the Pacific, but it's, you know, close and it's quite large, several hundred miles. So you have. There are a number of pretty good cases from that area. He's showing. Pulling something up.
- [89:50]
B
And who, who is reporting these cases in Aguadilla or around northern Puerto Rico?
- [89:56]
A
Aguadilla, yeah. That's not exactly at the trench, but it's, you know, not that far from.
- [90:01]
B
It, I guess, or around this area, roughly.
- [90:04]
A
The cases go good Puerto Rico trench cases go back to the early 60s that I found, maybe even in the 50s, but they really start to collect in the 60th, early 1960s. Gosh. There's some good Aguadilla cases from the 70s and the 80s and the 90s and the 2000s. Like they. They've got a. Throughout, there's quite a few interesting ones. There's a picture on that.
- [90:29]
B
Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico trench. Go to that one to the left over there. Top left. Yeah, right there. Blow that up so I can see it. Oh, wow.
- [90:38]
A
Tilted.
- [90:39]
B
So that's. That is on. Is that northeast south. Is that oriented the right way or is that reverse. It's northern plate is over here.
- [90:47]
A
Yeah.
- [90:47]
B
So that north is to the right, correct?
- [90:49]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [90:50]
B
And that would mean that Aguadilla is.
- [90:53]
A
Where, on the top left? Top right. Excuse me.
- [90:56]
B
Top right. Okay, I see where you got it. Yeah, that gets really deep right there. Wow.
- [91:02]
A
Yeah, it's super, super, extremely deep.
- [91:05]
B
Are there military people that are reporting any of this stuff?
- [91:08]
A
Yes, yes, absolutely. Well, reporting is a hard way to put it. So years after the fact, it comes. These stories will come out, you know, in a variety of ways.
- [91:20]
B
Yeah.
- [91:21]
A
So Puerto Rico is one hotspot we hear a lot of talk about. California's Catalina Island. Oh, yeah. Near LA there. That. Absolutely. The entire Atlantic seaboard of the United States going into Canada. Florida, where we are, is extremely, very, very active on all sides of the peninsula.
- [91:40]
B
Really?
- [91:40]
A
Florida. Yeah. This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. When you visit the doctor, you probably.
- [91:47]
B
Hand over your insurance, your ID and contact details. It's just one of the many places that has your personal info, and if.
- [91:53]
A
Any of them accidentally expose it, you could be at risk for identity theft.
- [91:57]
B
LifeLock monitors millions of data points a second. If you become a victim, they'll fix it, guaranteed. Need or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year@lifelock.com podcast terms apply.
- [92:11]
A
Absolutely. But going all the way up the eastern US coast. But then that's. See, here's the problem with this. So USOs, just like UFOs are UAP now, it's very US dominated in terms of reporting. Americans report this stuff way more. Seems. Well, we have better reporting infrastructure. We've got MUFON and we've got the National UFO Reporting Center. And so we're able to get these other regions of the world. I don't really think that they have the. The same infrastructure for collecting these cases.
- [92:45]
B
Right.
- [92:45]
A
It's hard. Now there are some areas, Italy, the Italian researchers have collected a lot. They do a lot of very good work out there. And you get some good cases out by Norway and Britain. Absolutely.
- [93:01]
B
What about South America?
- [93:03]
A
Yeah, South America, there's good. I, I mean I would have tended to think I'd find more because I. You just. You kind of like know there's a lot of activity going on in South America and there's a decent number of USO cases. Yeah. So down by Buenos Aires and Argentina also, all along Brazil. Brazil's got a lot of.
- [93:21]
B
Brazil's got a crazy history, just a general of UFOs.
- [93:24]
A
Yes, absolutely.
- [93:25]
B
I recently learned about that, that Jacques Fillet book where there was like a massacre down there.
- [93:29]
A
Polaris. Yeah, yes. At the Amazon, the delta reaching out to the Atlantic Ocean in the late 70s. Yes, yes, yes. And there's a lot of those that are genuine USO cases. So many of those were seen in the water, coming out of the water, entering the water. That's an incredibly ecologically important area, part of this world. I mean, it's the most massive amount of water flow, I think, going into any ocean on the planet.
- [93:58]
B
The Amazon River.
- [93:59]
A
Yeah. Out of the Amazon. It's massive. This is incredibly ecologically important and rich like estuary where you've got. It's just very important. So maybe there's part of that that's going on. Maybe they're interested in that.
- [94:14]
B
Yeah.
- [94:15]
A
But anyway, yeah, there were some cases in the late 70s there where people were killed and severely injured by these objects. And that. That definitely appears to be the case.
- [94:28]
B
Yeah, it was a lot. It seemed like. The way it was described to me was that there was like, it seemed like a slaughter of people or there's a lot of, A lot of people being. Being murdered and not in a kind way by something.
- [94:39]
A
Yeah. And in fact there are claims that this type of Thing goes on to this day, not necessarily in that specific region, but other parts of South America. I've really. I have. I've heard how recently, like quite recently, there's a gentleman I know named Tim Albarino. I really liked him. He went down. Where the hell was he? Was it Peru? Maybe? Anyway, just in the last few years, some very bizarre cases of like human mutilation type cases that he was looking into after. I. I wish I could.
- [95:16]
B
And these are with. These are with.
- [95:17]
A
I wish I could remember this a little bit better than I do.
- [95:20]
B
Are these with indigenous people or are these with sophisticated like, like. Like English speaking indigenous.
- [95:29]
A
Not living completely indigenous lifestyles, but, you know, very kind of like rural.
- [95:35]
B
Yeah.
- [95:36]
A
South American type. Yeah, yeah. I mean, they have some technology, so they're not.
- [95:41]
B
They're not uncontacted tribes. No, but they are. Wow.
- [95:45]
A
They live a more basic kind of a life than. Than we might hear with technology.
- [95:49]
B
And they're described. Did. Were there any details to like, who was responsible for this or like what their. What their descriptions were of who was doing this stuff?
- [96:00]
A
Well, there's, you know, Tracy's in the next room. She could probably jump in on this better than I could. But I'll just say that there's reason to wonder that this was a human operation going on that is not necessarily an alien thing. That this could be some kind of really like a diabolical covert op type of a thing happening possibly. I don't want to say much more because I'm afraid I'm going to say something that's not accurate.
- [96:26]
B
Okay, I see.
- [96:27]
A
But yeah, look, this is a subject where I think I started this 30 years ago, thinking I'm going to go down this rabbit hole for a couple of months and. And here you are. Like, it just opens up all of these fascinating and sometimes disturbing possibilities that are out there.
- [96:47]
B
You know, out of all the USO cases that you went over, which one was it? Were there any that stuck out to you or that many?
- [96:55]
A
Really quite a few that I think are just amazing.
- [96:57]
B
What I could.
- [96:58]
A
I could throw out a couple for you. Throw a couple.
- [97:00]
B
Also, I do want to. I want to know more about that 17. 17 case.
- [97:04]
A
Yeah. I'll tell you that right now. That's right off the coast of Martinique. That's in the Caribbean.
- [97:08]
B
Okay.
- [97:08]
A
So it's not that far from where we are here. We're in Florida. The name of the captain, I cannot recall his name. Chevalier. Something he wrote in his log. This is. So there. This is at. It's after midnight, so it's dark. There was. I looked into this. There was like a half moon out, so there was some light that was available. And what he claimed to have seen was a vertical orientation, like a, like a rod. He said it was like a mast of a ship. So like you, I envision like a. A straight perpendicular rod of some sort, but above the water, moving along with his ship. It's not the best case, but it's not the worst. Like, it's. It was. I decided to include it because he wrote it in a very matter of fact way. It was like 17. 17. 17.
- [98:04]
B
Wow.
- [98:04]
A
Yeah.
- [98:05]
B
This is way before submarines, obviously.
- [98:07]
A
Absolutely. And the 18th century, which. That is part of that. I don't. There's not many that I have found. There's an interesting one off the coast of southern France, I think, from 1740 that's kind of interesting. And then there's one from a river, a little small river in Scotland in 1767. And I think that might be it for the 18 only. Like a couple of cases, it really starts going. The first really good one that I just was kind of really taken by took place in 1825. And this was on a British vessel where they had just returned from Hawaii, in fact. Well, there's, there's a lot of interesting stories going on here, but they were coming back from Hawaii and they were going down the Pacific and they were going to end up in Chile.
- [98:58]
B
Okay.
- [99:00]
A
So they were down by the Cook Islands. So it's like way down in the south part of this Pacific, the Pacific Ocean. And it's 3:30 in the morning. The ships. There was a naturalist aboard the ship. I think of like in the movie Master and Commander. They, you know, the buddy of Russell Crowe, the captain was this naturalist that they had aboard the ship. And it's around the same time period. So I'm thinking something like that. He writes in his log, it was 1825. His name was Andrew Bloxham. We've got his name. His. His book is published. You can find the PDF online. I have a link to it from my book. And he said, yeah, 3:30, the. The watch on the ship reported a spherical object emerging from the ocean. He said it was like it looked like a red cannon shot coming out of the water. So it was like a deep orange type of a color, but incredibly bright. He said it was so bright. And he literally said you could pick a pin off the deck. It lifted up to a certain elevation and then went back down into the water and then came up a second time and then went back into the water. Now, you know, how many naturalistic explanations can you think of that can account for this? I can't think of any. And Bloxam writes this in a very straightforward way. I mean, you read the rest of his diaries? I read some of it. I mean, he was clearly a very meticulous, very rational man and very intelligent guy. And this just is this one bizarre entry in his. In his journal from August 12, 1825. That's a heck of a case. And I thought that's like the first really, really cool case.
- [100:47]
B
Do you remember how close or how far they were from land?
- [100:51]
A
They were off the Cook Islands. So those are. I don't know how close they were to that. They were. I. I don't think they were close to land. I think they were out there. They were out in the ocean. I don't know exactly. So he said, you know, and there's some other good ones from the 19th century. There's one from. Is he. What's that there?
- [101:09]
B
I. I found the story block, Sam, with a. With an X. Where is it? I just found it.
- [101:15]
A
Oh, you got it?
- [101:16]
B
Yeah. Well, this is the story.
- [101:18]
A
Good. Good deal. Yeah.
- [101:21]
B
Any. What has it got. You got illustrations or what? Yeah, I think this is the illustration of that event. Oh. Or at least it's included with the story. Oh, okay. Looks like an iceberg behind it, right?
- [101:34]
A
Yeah. They weren't by icebergs.
- [101:36]
B
Yeah. Cook Islands. There wouldn't have been icebergs.
- [101:38]
A
No, but that's the name. Andrew Bloxham.
- [101:42]
B
Okay. Interesting.
- [101:44]
A
Yeah. The HMS Blonde.
- [101:45]
B
Correct.
- [101:46]
A
That's the ship.
- [101:47]
B
And what year again?
- [101:47]
A
1825. 25, yeah.
- [101:50]
B
Wow. What was the size of the thing did they do?
- [101:55]
A
I. He. You know, I don't think he was a direct witness. I think he was reporting what the night watch reported. Ah. So there's that. So he's not a direct witness. So you can take that away from him.
- [102:04]
B
Okay.
- [102:05]
A
But they. I don't know if they had a really good size estimate. I get the impression it was kind of large. I mean, it was noticeable. It was very bright.
- [102:13]
B
Lit up the deck of the ship, by the way.
- [102:16]
A
So fast forward about 150 years to 1971.
- [102:21]
B
Okay.
- [102:23]
A
This is going into my next volume. And the USS John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier. So is near Puerto Rico. Just saying they had just. They were just finished what were called car quals, carrier qualifications. So they had done. This is a very involved series of exercises. And they had just completed that. It's 8:30, July 2, 1971. And the man operating communications, and we have his name. He. He in fact, reported this to Stephen Greer 25 years ago, and it's in Greer's book, Disclosure, which he wrote back then, and his name is James Kopf with a K. And he also reported this to a couple of other websites at the time. So he's operating communications on the JFK carrier. 8:30 at night. And he says, suddenly all of the communication. He discussed the way the communications on the ship were. He said incoming and outgoing. He said suddenly everything was gibberish. Everything coming in was just garbled messages. He's like, what. What's going on here? And then he hears, I'm laughing, but it's really. It's kind of not that funny. He hears on the intercom someone screaming, it's God. It's the end of the world. So he's thinking, what is going on? He's able to go out and look, and he sees almost what is described in Bloxham's account from 1825. He sees a glowing orange sphere hovering above or near the jfk. He said it gave off about half the strength of sunlight. So it's kind of bright. And there are. There are sailors who were having a really difficult time emotionally with this one. He said later, definitely had to be sedated in some way or another, and whatever. So he's watching this for maybe half a minute, not long, and then the ship goes to battle stations general quarters. So they've all got to go. So he has to go back to his communication station, where he says, for the next 20, 25 minutes, the ship was on general quarters and the communications were just down. And he also stated that he believed that the weapons, like aircraft, like, I think, what do they have, F4s? They were not operational, so the aircraft would not fly or weapons would not operate. So, anyway, I mentioned this because that glowing spherical object, I mean, to me, it's almost. It seems like it could have been identical to the one from the 1820s. And you get this same type of glowing globular sphere. Yeah. Like, what is that? Right.
- [105:20]
B
What is that? I wonder how many of them there are. You know, because, like, the most. The. The first one that I ever heard about was the Tic Tac.
- [105:27]
A
Yeah.
- [105:28]
B
And that thing was, like, zooming around, zipping around.
- [105:31]
A
And.
- [105:32]
B
And I think.
- [105:32]
A
I think there's a good chance there was something below the water there, too.
- [105:36]
B
Oh, you think there was a bigger ship that it came out of or something?
- [105:39]
A
I think so, yeah, there's talk about that and it's not 100 confirmed, but that's what I, I think is probably the case. But yeah, well, we. The Tic Tac's a great case. For sure. Absolutely for sure.
- [105:52]
B
I mean, that one's like. Apparently it's documented on all of his. His radar. Right. Even though it hasn't been released.
- [106:00]
A
Well, yeah, and there's a lot of good witnesses for that. Kevin Day, who operated the radar aboard the USS Princeton, who's a very decent man, is a friend of ours, was there and has talked about this in great detail. And of course we have David Fravor's testimony and a number of the other witnesses now have come out who have discussed it. So I don't think that we have any doubt that something very, very unusual happened there for sure. Of extremely high order of intelligence as well. I mean, anything that can appear at the. What's called the cap. The cap point, before you get there, they get there.
- [106:39]
B
It's like time travel.
- [106:42]
A
Some well put off. Called it space time metric engineering. Maybe that's what they're doing.
- [106:48]
B
Wow.
- [106:49]
A
In some way that's San Diego, right?
- [106:51]
B
It's not anywhere near Catalina.
- [106:52]
A
It's off the coast of. That happened off the coast of lower Baja California.
- [106:56]
B
Oh, that was in. Near Baja California, I think.
- [106:58]
A
Yeah, a little south probably. South west of San Diego, I think.
- [107:02]
B
Okay.
- [107:03]
A
Not, not that far.
- [107:04]
B
Right.
- [107:05]
A
But off out out there in the Pacific. There's a lot of crazy stuff out in the ocean.
- [107:10]
B
I have a friend who lives in Tijuana and he says there's all kinds of like UFO stuff going on out there, especially like in the wall, like USO type stuff and stuff that you really don't hear about in like the media in the U.S. yeah, I, I.
- [107:21]
A
Think that there's a lot of anecdotal information in Mexico. I have, you know, we spoke to a couple of years ago, a gentleman who had an interesting USO account off the Yucatan. Part of it, you know, on the other side.
- [107:36]
B
Oh, really?
- [107:37]
A
But yeah, I think, I think, I don't think they get reported officially. So they're just like the stories are floating around there, as it were, and how. I, I have no doubt there's far more cases that are connected to Mexico than we probably. You know, I have been able to.
- [107:55]
B
Find, you know, the, just the reports from like Robert hastings with the UFOs and nukes and the, the saucers showing up above these nuclear missile silos and things like this. I can imagine that there's not Some crazy case of like a ufo, like stopping a nuclear submarine or something, or interacting with like, a big nuclear sub.
- [108:15]
A
Well, we have some pretty good account, actually, the best accounts of that. By the way, I'm a very big admirer of Robert Hastings work, especially on nukes. Very, very important. So I'm glad you mentioned him. But, yeah, the best nuclear submarine stories that I've been able to find. I mean, there's a one or two of American, but the Soviets, Soviet Union. Yeah, they have some. We learned about them. I think a lot of this happened when the Soviet Union fell in, in 1991. And for a while there, a lot of these stories came out, a lot of KGB files and this type of thing. And so we Soviet Navy in the late 60s and through the 70s and probably beyond reported something. And I'm sure I'm going to mispronounce this. It's spelled kavakheri. It's a Russian word. It apparently means frogs because these things would make a croaking sound in the water. So Soviet submarines, and I think this is most active in the northern Atlantic, very strategically important area. If you're operating submarines and they were encountering these, and at first. So these objects would be in the water, they'd hear these bizarre croaking type sounds apparently, and wonder this Americans, are they. What is. Is this some kind of. Of new technology we have to worry about?
- [109:42]
B
And how were they hearing it? Through their equipment.
- [109:44]
A
Hearing. Yeah, through their equipment. And apparently these things would like, circle around them. That's not easy to do. Circle around a nuclear submarine. Right, but that would happen and there'd be multiple ones of them. They'd be surrounded. They never got a sense that these were acting in a hostile manner. To your question, like, are they engaging in that? I don't. I'm not aware that the Soviets believed that these kavakari were operating in a hostile way, but they were spooky. And I think they. They definitely spooked them. And there was a. Apparently a formal classified study of them that was supposedly within the Soviet military structure. And it's not available that I'm aware of.
- [110:33]
B
But yeah, it's interesting because you only have your, your equipment to measure what's going on outside. You don't really have those submarines, don't have giant windows to see, like.
- [110:43]
A
No.
- [110:43]
B
What's going on.
- [110:44]
A
Exactly.
- [110:44]
B
So those things could probably evade any kind of detection.
- [110:47]
A
One of the things that just fascinates me about these USOs is like, whenever I write about any of these, I, I try to Whatever extent possible to put myself in that position to. Because you want to be, you want to be accurate, you want to be analytical, but you really want to, like. I want to feel what is it like to be there. So imagine it's the Cold war, it's the 1960s or 70s, and you're in the water and you're hunting for the enemy. You're a Russian, you're hunting for the Americans, you're American, you're hunting for the Russians. And it's pitch black. And you know, and then there's this other thing. There's this other presence there. I mean, it's not hard to see why there would be secrecy from their point of view about this. I mean, honestly, I mean. But the amount of drama is my microphone. Am I okay here?
- [111:46]
B
Oh, is he good, Steve?
- [111:47]
A
Am I okay?
- [111:47]
B
Pull up just a little bit, just in case.
- [111:49]
A
I don't want to mess it up.
- [111:50]
B
Yeah, he's good.
- [111:50]
A
Okay, thank you. I just have to think like the drama, the human drama has got to be off the charts for these people to have experiences. And that was one of the real draws for me to, to engage in this project.
- [112:05]
B
Yeah, that's one of the things I think about a lot too. Like, you know, there's various ideas of, like, how many people in the world know the truth about this stuff, right? Like, how many people that exist on earth know everything outside of the compartmented. You know what I mean? People that have all the pieces to the puzzle. Maybe, maybe 100, 200, 300.
- [112:24]
A
I mean, I spent 30 plus years and I'm not one of them.
- [112:27]
B
Right.
- [112:28]
A
I've tried, right. I try to get a handle on it, but there's massive gaps. I, like, I have it.
- [112:34]
B
I always imagine like if you were one of those people, if they do exist, if there is anyone who has the whole picture or the whole, every piece of the pie, what that must do to your world view and your, your. You know what I mean? Just like your life and, and many separating your work life from your home, from your family life. If you have a family life, if you could, if that can exist.
- [112:57]
A
Knowing that, right about 15, 16 years ago, I think I, I coined a phrase which is still out there. I still hear it's called breakaway civilization. So it's the idea that you coined that phrase. Yeah, yeah.
- [113:11]
B
Really?
- [113:11]
A
That's my little thing. Yeah.
- [113:12]
B
Oh, wow.
- [113:14]
A
And I was thinking, because I'm interested in the study of human civilizations as a very kind of. I, I once read the condensed version of a book by Arnold Toynbee a really great historian. It's like the Mozart of historians, in my opinion. And he wrote this. Arnold Toynbee, he was a genius, okay? And I think he died in the 40s, but he wrote this, something that is really not popular anymore. He did these meta historians, like he was looking at the grand progress of human society and what is it that makes a civilization? And so he did this comparative study of human civilizations. Anyway, I was reading that at the time, this is 2007, 2008, and I thought, you know, what about a civilization that develops out of the classified world that we don't know about, based on Roswell tech or whatever other advanced tech that is kept secret? We had examples during the Cold War of separate scientific infrastructure. In the Soviet Union they had a separate scientific infrastructure that in a lot of ways was based on some really bizarre things. They had this guy named Trofim Lysenko who had these very unusual ideas about biology and evolution that were only designed to conform with Soviet communist ideology. And. But it forced an entire infrastructure to go down this dead end path, basically of research. So, like there are. Now that's something we know about. But could you develop, I asked myself, based on ufotech, that is kept secret, which I was really thinking a lot about, of course, at that time, to the point where you would have breakthroughs in terms of understanding, whether it's gravity or material science, or understanding who these beings are that you cannot share with the rest of the world, right? But you, that doesn't stop you from continuing on, right, to develop this. And so you, you end up going on your own path and you kind of break away intellectually and cosmologically and maybe technologically from, you know, us, us little pros living on the surface. But you, you are aware of anti gravity search, you have the ability to go off world, maybe you have the ability to learn who these other beings are. More than. So that would. I called it a breakaway civilization when that's broken away from our own. That doesn't necessarily mean that they all live on Mars in like, what's that alternative 3 setting. But it could mean, as you were just saying, you've got a job in the classified world, you go off, you punch the clock and you go into your classified project, which then through that you probably go into, through another classified project and maybe a third. And so you've got all these layers of COVID and then you do your work, you're in the breakaway, and then you come home, you say hello to your spouse. How was work, dear? Oh, It's a pretty good day, you know, and you can't really talk about it. So that I think is probably. That was my, my vision of it. Other people have taken the idea. Joseph Farrell, we talked about Joseph. He has, he actually wrote about it as well. And you could, you can go pretty far with it. I'm usually, I'm more cautious about it than almost anyone else that I've heard talk about it, but I do believe that there's probably something like that.
- [116:52]
B
Well, if you were one of the executives of one of those corporations that did have this technology that's been evolving since the 50s with some sort of crazy physical understanding of physics that the rest of the world doesn't even understand, and you now have weapons that are more powerful than the United States military. Russia, China, all of them combined. And the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wants some answers. You're going to give them the double bird.
- [117:19]
A
Yeah.
- [117:19]
B
You say off, you're not getting any of our stuff. We could take out every single military on the war in, in the, in the snap of our fingers. So like you, you don't have to answer to anybody.
- [117:29]
A
Yeah, if they're that independent. I mean, that's a really good question. And you're getting into a key area which is how. What is the structure of this secrecy, for real? Like who, who's running it? Who's. Who's the guy in charge? And does he answer to someone else? Does he answer to them? There's all kinds of possibilities.
- [117:52]
B
Who does he answer to?
- [117:53]
A
Right, exactly. And you know, this is. I don't know. I don't have that answer.
- [117:56]
B
This is interesting. You know, the. I had this lady on recently, this woman who tracks money in the government and government spending and budgets and stuff like this. And she was a head. She was a. Worked during the Bush administration and she was a part.
- [118:12]
A
Talking about Catherine Austin Fitz.
- [118:14]
B
Yes.
- [118:14]
A
Yeah, she's a great friend of mine.
- [118:15]
B
Oh, really?
- [118:16]
A
Love Catherine.
- [118:17]
B
I just had her on. Fascinating.
- [118:18]
A
And she was a brilliant lady.
- [118:20]
B
She was explaining. Yeah, she was explaining like how the money that went missing when Donald Rumsfeld did that press conference the day before 911 said there was $4 trillion missing from the spread from, from the receipts.
- [118:30]
A
I think his quote was 2.3 trillion.
- [118:33]
B
Yeah, I got it wrong. Two point.
- [118:34]
A
Yeah, no, yeah, that's all right.
- [118:36]
B
And basically, you know, she looks at this whole thing from a balance sheet perspective, saying all these trillions of dollars have gone missing and there's. They're not accounted for. And if this, if these Things went to black projects. You know, what we're speculating about with companies that have all this crazy tech is not that far off.
- [118:57]
A
Yeah, a couple of things. So first of all, everyone should know who Katherine Austin Fitz is. She's a great benefactor to our civilization and she is a gem and a brilliant individual and a wonderful person. She's like an absolutely decent, wonderful. Totally so. But she's also, she has opened up this whole area. Now the thing about the two point. First it was 2.6 trillion. In the summer of 01, that was 2.3. And that number actually, they supposedly got it down to zero, if you want to believe that. But, but, but the, what they really were talking about, as I understand it, and Catherine could probably do this better, far better than me, it doesn't to my understanding, necessarily mean that $2.3 trillion went missing. You're talking about unresolved discrepancies in the payment. So you've got all these different accounting systems within the Pentagon and you've got. So there's a lot of opportunities for duplicate transactions to be recorded. And so I don't really know how much money gets siphoned out. There's definitely, I mean, I completely agree. A lot of money that's gotten siphoned out. And what is the exact number it's $2.3 trillion would be. You know, the Pentagon's official budget in 2001 was something like 300 billion. So you're talking a factor of eight. So how do you lose eight times your annual budget? It beats me. I don't know what, how that works. My accounting skills are not very good. But clearly we are talking about one thing Catherine said to me, I think, and she's probably written it, she talked about when she first she became Assistant Secretary of hud, Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush administration back in 1989. And her thing was always finance. She's a financial whiz. And she described, and Catherine, forgive me if I get this slightly wrong, she said, I want to look at the full budget of hud. Is that it? And they're like, you're not authorized. And she said, the hell I'm not authorized. So she said they eventually wheeled in. She described the library carts, you know, like where they have library books, like one after another after another filled with stacks of papers. And she, I think she said something like, you know, God could not sort this mess out. It was designed, it was so. It was, it was physically unauditable. And, and one of her points, I definitely remember this was, it was, it was like designed by default, physically impossible to audit the U.S. government. And, and she made a very many, many astute observations. She just said, look, we have a system where these people are, they do not adhere to the rule of law. They are above the rule of law.
- [121:50]
B
Yes.
- [121:50]
A
And I, I think, you know, that puts it as well as anyone has ever done.
- [121:54]
B
Yeah, it's a, it's a terror. It's a terrifying idea that they're. All this money is going to some stuff that, you know, and, and then.
- [122:01]
A
Well, think of one thing here.
- [122:03]
B
Sure.
- [122:03]
A
So all of our history. Right. We. I'm sorry to interrupt you. All of our history has been a extremely hierarchical structure. So you've always, it's always been this way. You have a king, priesthood guys in charge and they own everything, they control everything. But in the last couple of hundred years, we like to think that we have this democracy of some sort where everyone's participating and it's egalitarian. And yeah, that's, that's what we actually have is, it's a pretend democracy. And both parts of that are equally important. You have to have. The people need to believe that they have a kind of democratic system or else they'd be very unhappy. Because we want to think that we have a say in our system. But the reality has always been there's always been elites, there's always been the guys on top. And throughout all of the 19th and 20th and now 21st century, their goal has always been to figure out how do we let the people keep believing these little fairy tales while we keep running things the way we've always done. And that's really what the system is. And so now it's a system that is inherently dishonest. It has to rule by lies because. And, and that, that distorts all of our politics too, because everything's now out in the open. You can't really. Yeah, everything's got to be kind of tossed out there for the people. And it's all a series of manipulations, one after the net. It's just. We get propagandized 24 7.
- [123:33]
B
Yeah.
- [123:33]
A
Basically what it is.
- [123:34]
B
Sure. Yeah. And it's built on lies. And that's why they can't disclose certain things because they feel like that will unravel a who layer of lies that will, that will make people accountable for things and people will go to prison. I'm sure, I'm sure there'll be a lot of really terrible consequences for divulging some of the secret information.
- [123:54]
A
Let's go, go back to UFOs. I mean 15 years ago I co authored a really a cool book with a man named Bryce Zabel and it's called Ad after Disclosure. So that was, that was for, I think the only book length treatment on like how could disclosure happen? What would, how would it, how would it rock our world if it were to happen? And it feels like a different lifetime. I'm 15 years ago, 2010 was a totally different world. It feels like. But, but one thing that I've always felt is that a genuine reveal of this whole UFO UAP subject, like a true reveal, is highly, highly destabilizing really to. Yes, 100%. 100%. And this is why there is an absolutely, like, we are never going to give this up. Like there are factions that will never give this up. They will never look, think of it.
- [124:51]
B
Like, but they will never give it up.
- [124:54]
A
They'll never willingly give up this to.
- [124:55]
B
Protect us or to protect themselves.
- [124:57]
A
Protect themselves to protect the system that's in place.
- [124:59]
B
Right, sure.
- [125:00]
A
They made you rationalize it to say you people don't know what you're getting into. We're protecting you. Like I could see them justifying that. Yeah, maybe they're right. We, we don't know all of it, do we? I believe in truth. I like to think that most of us believe in truth. And if I'm going to have faith in anything, it's going to be a faith in, in truth. I, I, what else? If you cannot believe in truth, what else you got? Like, yeah, so I, I'm going to believe in that. However. So let's say now in 2010 when we wrote this, the country was not nearly as polarized as it is now. So in 2010 we're envisioning the president goes and tells the world, well, you know, this thing happened, this sighting occurred. We can't really ignore it anymore. Yes, it's real and some, and some of them are not human and they're here. That would be disclosure. Right. That's kind of what we all imagine. And so even under that scenario, I think it's way more complex now. We can get to that. But even in that scenario, I was, you know, even in 2010, I was all over 9, 11. I got into a lot of trouble among some UFO researchers because I was an early 911 conspiracy guy.
- [126:19]
B
Were you?
- [126:20]
A
Absolutely. Still am. Really not going to be insulted by that.
- [126:24]
B
Welcome. We'll come back to that then.
- [126:26]
A
Yeah, yeah, I'm, you know, there are people far more conversant with that than me, but yes. My dad worked at the World Trade center back in September 01. He had the day off. My dad had the day off. What? My dad was a retired New York City cop at the time and he had a really cool job as a fire safety director, as they were called at the Twin Towers. Yeah, he shared his job with a really nice man who I knew who was killed that day. Name was Billy. And yeah, really affected my dad. It was a real, real tough thing. So 911 was a very personal thing on that level. I mean, for anyone who went through that. Of course, I'm not saying, like more for me than anyone else, but my dad was. Was there. That's crazy.
- [127:09]
B
So your dad, your dad knew a lot of people that died and you did too?
- [127:12]
A
Yeah, a lot of firefighters, of course. What good people.
- [127:15]
B
One of my theories on 911 is that the people that were closest to it and affected by it the most emotionally and personally are the ones that have. And I could be wrong here, though. I think you proved this wrong. But those are the ones that have the least capacity to entertain any.
- [127:32]
A
No, you're right.
- [127:33]
B
Any of the alternate ideas that happen. Right. That don't go with the narrative. Right. They seem to be the ones that go with the narrative. The people who are more disconnected from it or even born after.
- [127:41]
A
You're totally right.
- [127:42]
B
Yeah.
- [127:43]
A
Yeah. I almost wrote a book. Keep wondering about this On False Flags, the history of false flag operations in our world. I got really into it and in fact, I wrote a little TV series for Gaia Television a number of years ago on the history of false flags. You can go find it, go to Gaia and go look for it. That was much less than I had actually researched. I did a lot more research on False Flags than I did for that series. But one thing that a false flag does to people, it's a real psychological head game that you play on people because you are creating this massive trauma for your society. It's an emotional trauma. And what you're doing is this horrible, horrible thing happens, and people are naturally going to be deeply upset by it. And then what you do, this is the genius of it. You find the solution immediately, whether it's Hitler invading Poland and saying we were attacked by the Poles. That's what he did. Or any other. There's a lot of false flags. America is the king of false flags, especially after World War II and all the COVID ops that we have done. But anyway, you create a catastrophe, a trauma that people freak out over, and you identify it. You don't you connect the emotion to the intellect so you have the emotional connection to some kind of. Here's the explanation. And once, once you get that, people like my own dad. My father, you know, when I started really looking at 9 11, I used to talk to my dad on the phone about this. And I have to be careful because I could get emotional. So just forgive me here.
- [129:38]
B
Sure, sure.
- [129:40]
A
But my dad learns that, like. Richie, are you looking into. I just saw this PBS thing and it just showed. He talked about the Pancake theory that was put out. Total theory, but it was. That was put out within a week of the event. This guy comes out and says this is how it happened. Like, no, you have no freaking idea.
- [130:00]
B
What was it? What was that theory? Roughly?
- [130:02]
A
The, the, the planes crashing caused a pancaking effect.
- [130:07]
B
Oh, yeah.
- [130:07]
A
Of the one floor, on the other floor and all the way down. And it did not happen that way at all. But it was. So anyway, that goes on to pbs, which is total CIA op anyway. And my dad bought into it. Of course he did. You know, I don't blame him. And then he, he was like, he really had a struggle with the fact that his son was going all into this alternative theory about 9 11. And I talk with him every week on the phone and, and he came around, you know, my, My dad. I will have to talk about something else. So let's move. Move on. We'll come back to it when I can collect myself.
- [130:46]
B
Sure. We were talking about disclosure and.
- [130:49]
A
Yeah.
- [130:50]
B
What it would look like and what the incentives would be for disclosure and how. You did mention that you think disclosure nowadays would be far more complex than.
- [131:00]
A
It would have been. Yes, I do. Yeah, I do. Because. Well, because Trump, if I can. Am I allowed to say that on YouTube? Yeah, you know, he hits the scene in 2015, basically.
- [131:12]
B
Actually, we'll do better on YouTube if you say Trump.
- [131:14]
A
Yeah, well. And you know, I mean, how do you talk about this without 50% of the population shitting their pants? So whatever I end up saying, someone's going to be upset. But basically you have a guy who comes in that is the ultra most polarizing political figure that we've had since Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a highly polarizing president, if you really go back. But here comes Trump and. And so now we're at a point where whether it's Trump or anyone else, whether, if it was Biden, wouldn't be no different. Because a president who comes up there says anything on this and you've got half the country, half the world, Maybe saying, I don't believe you. They're not going to believe it. So that's a complication where we're in a kind of a post truth world essentially where how do you, how do we actually reliably fact check? You have so called fact checkers out there now and we all know it's nonsense. So difficult and they're so politicized and they're so ultra establishment oriented.
- [132:24]
B
It's obvious people just lean into their audience.
- [132:27]
A
Yeah. So I think that really complicates disclosure as well. I mean, look, you know, we were talking earlier in this conversation about the congressional thing and. Yeah, sorry, skeptics will just. How they'll just jump on anything and they'll cause a lot of noise and it works.
- [132:44]
B
Yeah, well, I, I've thought about it and I think I'm probably in that camp where if the top, top, top level of government came out and said aliens are real, I would probably think the opposite or something. There's some sort of weird mix. Right. I mean there's definitely a large amount of people out there who for you can't really blame them that.
- [133:03]
A
No, you cannot.
- [133:04]
B
And whatever the government tells them, they, they think the opposite's true.
- [133:07]
A
You're probably going to be right to a certain extent. Think UFO reality is a mountain. Right. It's a massive Mount Everest. And so you're going to disclose that? You're going to disclose that whole thing?
- [133:16]
B
Right?
- [133:16]
A
Right. You think so? Yeah. So what you'll do is they'll take like a little freaking sliver and say here, this is. And it would be a true sliver. Right. But it's certainly an incomplete and I'm sure it's a sliver that will provide the COVID your ass rule very effectively to make you look as good as possible. Yeah. So it's going to be deceptive.
- [133:37]
B
Yes.
- [133:37]
A
Any kind of real official attempt at disclosure is almost certainly gonna follow that model. I still maintain, and I've caught a lot of hell for this and you know, what can I say? But I do think that a lot of the people who are pushing this now, like people like Hal Puthoff. I've known Hal Puthoff for over 25 years. I admire and respect him and I think he's, I think he's on the right side of this. That's my belief. People can say you're, you know, you're naive, whatever. Lou Elizondo. I'll say the same thing. Christopher Mellon. These are establishment people in a way that I've never been. I'm not an establishment guy.
- [134:18]
B
You're a journalist.
- [134:19]
A
I'm a historian and I guess I do journalism. I don't know what I am. I'm a researcher.
- [134:24]
B
Right.
- [134:25]
A
But I'm not. I've never been in that world. So I don't have. I don't think like they do. Like, I don't think like a guy like Elizondo. People complain that he's harps on the national security thing, but he's army counterintelligence. What do you expect? This is what you pay him to do. Like that's his job.
- [134:43]
B
Yeah.
- [134:43]
A
He, his salary is to look for threats. How do you expect someone who's to do that? Not, not to do that. So. But I'm not, I don't look at it that way. So I don't have a lot of their, you know, predilections to that. But I do think like there are people who have a. Like they're doing this in good faith. They're. They're not, they're not like saying, haha, you know, we're gonna screw them over. I mean, everyone's got their angle. Everyone's always looking out for their self interest. That's human nature. You can never not expect that. But, but there are definitely the secrets. The real hardcore secrecy group that I think think they are not. They're. Those guys do operate very effectively.
- [135:29]
B
Do you have sort of like a, a checklist or do you have any sort of way to qualify people who come out in the public and start talking about this stuff to what. Whether or not, or do you even think about it? Whether or not people are incredible credible. Are they. Are they strategically putting out disinformation or some, some sort of a mixed bag.
- [135:56]
A
That's a very fair question. And I don't, I don't know if I can like, I can't give you a mathematical equation to say this is. He fulfills all of these criteria. There are certain things because there's people.
- [136:07]
B
There's people that, that could be a. They could be just. Well, I think it's. I think it's complicated. I think that there's people that are out there to make money and to like sell books and to do these kinds of things. But they could also be useful idiots to an extent.
- [136:21]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [136:22]
B
And have more or less people in the government trying to encourage them.
- [136:27]
A
Look, the best thing that you can. I. Everything you said is totally on point. I would just say there are certain criteria that, that any responsible researcher should adhere to. So when first of all you, you want to you know, we went through a period a decade or more ago when you'd have all of these totally anonymous so called whistleblowers that were out there or people who said I worked for this department or that department, but they provide no background where you can verify anything. Like the first thing you need to know is did this person actually work where they said they worked, did they do that? Secondly, you have to not jump to conclusions. Probably the first best thing you could do. And, and wait. You have to wait. Someone comes out with a claim. I, I would, I would. I don't like knee jerk reactions to whether pro or con, that go too far. Like you want to take your time with these things. This is why, like I'm not always really comfortable talking about the every like latest little story that happens.
- [137:39]
B
Right.
- [137:39]
A
Even though I, I personally, I feel pressured because like I've been doing this so long. People want to know, what do you think?
- [137:46]
B
It's really, I've noticed that with this topic it is hard to avoid talking about specific people in this community.
- [137:51]
A
Yeah. And you get like. And it's hard not to go chasing after the latest headlines. Yeah. Which is a problem because ideally what you want to do is you want to stop and wait and go slow so that other researchers who know more about propulsion than you do, who know more about the history of aviation than you do, who know more about the history of this department than you. Like, you want all these people to have a chance to chime in and provide their own perspective. And that just takes time and it's nuanced. But no, I don't know if I have a sure shot answer to these things. I remember when Bob Lazar, you know, was, he's still, I guess, a little controversial. It was much more controversial in the past. And part of it is like you, you go by for me because I wrote about him over 15 years ago in one of my books and it was really difficult. Like I didn't know what do I think about Bob Lazar. I didn't know back in 2007, 2008, when I'm finishing one of my books and I ended up thinking, I believe this man. And I believed him because of the consistency of what he said over a number of years. The fact that I never felt he tried to go for reach or to try to go into an area that was different. He. And when he didn't know something, he would say so like, and then, and then, of course I did get to meet a number of people who knew Lazar, you know, somewhat well, not perfectly, but. And I got to know George Knapp also very well during those years. I have a tremendous regard for George. So I ended up, you know, this is how I made my decision on Bob Lazar. Fortunately for me, I.
- [139:32]
B
What was your decision on Bozar?
- [139:33]
A
That he's legit. He's telling. He was telling the truth news.
- [139:36]
B
Yeah. It seems to me that. That he would be a great candidate for the CIA to choose to come there because he's so easily discreditable because of his background and some of the stuff that he was.
- [139:45]
A
Yeah, yeah, that's right.
- [139:47]
B
Like the. The brothel and the other stuff.
- [139:50]
A
Yeah. He did security work for, I think, Nevada brothel, I think was at security. He put in some cameras for them or whatever he did.
- [139:58]
B
There was a weird thing about his wife that happened, the first wife, I think, who, like suicide.
- [140:03]
A
There are marital issues.
- [140:05]
B
He went and got married, like, while he was still married to her. There's a bunch of. Really. Which was. It's such a cluster of logic when you're thinking about this stuff, because you gotta think, like, all of these things.
- [140:15]
A
Which are utterly irrelevant.
- [140:17]
B
Right, exactly.
- [140:18]
A
Story.
- [140:19]
B
Exactly. So it's like, on one hand, why would they choose this guy to do this thing? But then if you're looking at it from the reverse side of the lens, if you're some intelligence operation trying to do something and protect yourself in case the cat gets out of the bag, you want people to question him and discredit him, to think he's alive.
- [140:38]
A
Possibly. But actually, if you hear his story, like the way he tells it, he made the initiative to do all of this. So he was very unhappy with his employment situation at the time. He had met Edward Teller, the inventor of the fuse for the H bomb, and I think the original Dr. Strangelove, I suspect, in Los Alamos in the early 1980s, I think 1982, and had a very good back and forth conversation because Lazar. Lazar is a crazy. Like, he's a brilliant guy. And he developed his jet car, right. And it made the COVID of the Los Alamos local paper. And he's meeting with Teller, and apparently Teller says, call me sometime, young man. You know, they had this kind of conversation and a couple of years go by, and Lazar's like, I'm going to. And he. He was able to get a. The job with EG and G, which got him out to S4. And then the only reason that he went public is he, Bob Lazar. Forgive me if I'm getting any of this wrong, but he started talking about it to John Lear and his. His friend Gene Huff, who was a real estate friend of his at the time. And they start going out to watch the displays of the craft. And I think the second time out, they got caught and he got into some serious trouble. And, you know, had that not happened, I don't know. I think he's talked about this is like, you know, maybe I. I should have stayed in. In the. Stayed in the. In the biz, and I could have, but he would have been a lifer, and we've never heard about him.
- [142:15]
B
Right.
- [142:16]
A
So it's possible that he was selected for certain possibility. Yeah. You know, maybe they. They might have psychologically profile him and think this is a guy that he doesn't seem to give a. He says what he says.
- [142:30]
B
Did you watch the interview with him or the. It was. I think it was like a. More of a debate or like a conversation with him and Stan Friedman.
- [142:42]
A
No, I knew Stanton Friedman very well, and I know exactly what Stanton. You know. Yeah. Stan never, ever, ever, ever believed Lazar's story. Called him a fraud. You know, when I first. The first time I met stan was in 2001. Long time ago. I was brand new. I was. I was. I still had nice black hair, hope in my eyes. You could look carefully, you could see it. I had all of. I had big round glasses still. And I wasn't yet 40. And anyway, so I meet with Stan, and he wanted. The first thing he wanted to know about me was what was my position on box.
- [143:21]
B
That's the litmus test.
- [143:22]
A
Yeah. And I was like, at that time, I hadn't even. I wasn't even really conversant with Lazar's story. I had just worked my ass off to get the story of UFOs up to 1973. That was the end of my first volume. And Lazar, you know, he was after that. And I was aware that I had to study him, but I hadn't yet really gotten on top. But Stan wanted to know, like, if I had the proper perspective on Lazar. And I actually, I've always. I mean, I really appreciate and respect Stan, always will, but I did not appreciate that. I felt that he was trying to pressure me in a way that I just don't, like, don't. Don't tell me what I'm supposed to think on this. I'll come to my own damn decision. And even at that time, I was not inclined to dismiss Lazar's story, but I. I kept it off to the side until I Felt that I had spent enough time to research it.
- [144:15]
B
Yeah.
- [144:16]
A
And yeah, at that time, this is still in the early 2000s, in the late 90s and. But a lot of Lazar's interviews were available. Transcripts that he had done in like 1990, 91, 92, read them all.
- [144:31]
B
He doesn't do anymore. He doesn't do any interviews.
- [144:33]
A
No. But in the early 90s he did quite a bit.
- [144:35]
B
Why do you think, do you have any idea why he stopped or do you have any series?
- [144:39]
A
It's hard for me to week for him. The impression that one gets is that he just got sick and tired of the field and that there was, you know, it's like time to move on. It's like I put my information out there. This is a crazy community, which it is. And was, you know, we, we don't really do a good job at managing ourselves. It's impossible.
- [144:59]
B
Yeah. And there's also, there's all these other whistleblowers that come out and one of the most recent ones that really screwed my mind up was the guy who went on Jesse Michael's podcast. He was talking about kidnapping kids from Indonesia after an earthquake. And then look at Michael Herrera. So Herrera, this guy corroborated Herrera.
- [145:22]
A
Talking about Jake Barber.
- [145:23]
B
Yes.
- [145:24]
A
Yeah.
- [145:25]
B
His story.
- [145:26]
A
I did not hear this and I. Jesse Michaels, great podcast.
- [145:31]
B
It's basically the Herrera story. Yeah, right. He, I mean he had a different, he was, had a different angle of it. He was a part of some different organization. But basically he says that he went to one of Greer's public.
- [145:41]
A
Yeah.
- [145:42]
B
Whistleblower conferences and he heard Herrera talk. So Jake Barber says that he went there as like a guy to catch whistleblowers, to prosecute them. Right. And then he heard Herrera talk and he's like, oh my God, I was a part of this.
- [145:58]
A
You basically have it, but you've got the wrong interpretation of it. It, I think like it's not a human trafficking kind of thing, which is. I think he got a kind of.
- [146:06]
B
So, yeah, so Jesse brought up, brought that up about the human trafficking. This guy Mike, Jake Barber got really upset when he called it human trafficking. Yeah, no, it wasn't human trafficking.
- [146:14]
A
Right.
- [146:14]
B
We were capturing these people. We weren't capturing them, but we were bringing them back here and holding them to use them as psychic manipulators or psychic pilots for these UFOs. And he's like, they, they were, they were in distress. There was an earthquake and we were looking for children who were left handed and homosexual because they have the Highest psycho psychic abilities. And it's like, what the are you talking about?
- [146:37]
A
Well, hey, Leonardo da Vinci was one of those, wasn't he?
- [146:40]
B
Yes, he was. And, and you know, you said they were, they were keeping them and like feeding them certain things, like not giving them, like, I don't know what they were doing, restricting their diet somehow. I don't know if they're keeping them against their wills. But this guy is talking about some way, way out there. Sci fi, stranger things type stuff. And then it's like, how far, how far do we allow these people to take us?
- [147:03]
A
I personally have not formed a definite opinion on this one. I just haven't. I mean, I'm aware of the story. And we mentioned Stan Friedman. Stan had a great expression. He called something, he had a gray box. He said, if I don't know if it's true or false, I put it in my gray box.
- [147:18]
B
Yeah.
- [147:19]
A
And there's a lot of things to go in a gray box box. Sure. And that, that's one of those things where, I mean, I would say let's keep it open and let's find out if there's any other research that can verify it to some extent. So we have, you have Herrera, then you have Jake Barber. So that's two points. That's not equal to proof, but it makes it a little more interesting and maybe we can, we can move on from there. But that's the problem with a lot of the elements in this field you're dealing with. I mean, by its very nature, the UFO. Let me just keep saying UFO because I'm so used to it. We say UAP, whatever UFOs represent. I mean we, we talk about it in our society often enough. But I am absolutely convinced we don't fully appreciate the depth of what it really means. I mean, look, imagine being across the table, not from me, but from one of them. And imagine they have an IQ of 500 and they're looking right at you and they've got a telepathic ability. Maybe they're connected to a hive mind so they know everything that you don't know. And they can peer into your mind, into all the little avenues and recesses and like, and they don't laugh at your jokes or they're gonna run for the hills and they're, and, and even if they look like us, us, like that's intimidating. That there's no way that's not going to be intimidating. To run into beings like that that operate on a completely different level that we will not. We, we like to think that, well, yo. We'll be like that one day. I don't think so. No, we're not going to be like that. I'm not and you're not. Maybe a thousand years from now, who knows?
- [149:02]
B
Is there any story, is there any crazy story that's out there, right. The ufo, whether it be abduction or a sighting or anything that's like. There's no solid evidence one way or the other that you know for a fact is true?
- [149:14]
A
Oh, wow. Prob. Probably. I don't, I don't know. That's a great question. I wish I could have thought about this before. It's kind of tough. Kind of tough on the spot. A story that has no.
- [149:30]
B
Whether it be like a, like a. I mean, other than the fact that, you know, obviously we have like things like the Tic Tac where.
- [149:35]
A
Right.
- [149:35]
B
It's like a. We know that's. We've had people testify and there's, there's the, the, the footage, like the go fast and the Fleer stuff, but it's kind of like. It's grainy footage, whatever. And it's kind of like take it for what it is. It could be darpa, it could be non human intelligence, but like say there's one of these whistleblowers that come out like Michael Herrera or Jake Barber or, or Bob Lazar. Right. One of these sort of stories that you. That you know for a fact.
- [149:59]
A
Well, one. I mean, this isn't a UFO incident, but this was the Davis Wilson notes that I talked about a little earlier when we talked about Eric Davis. I knew for a fact when those things came out in 2019, that that document, I knew it was real. And there were a lot of people at the time who were saying it's fake. One person said it was a movie script. One person. A lot of people were just saying it's complete disinformation.
- [150:19]
B
Yeah.
- [150:20]
A
And I, for a while there, I was actually really, really pissed off at the rest of the research community because I was for a little while the only, the only person publicly to take a stand on it.
- [150:31]
B
Wow.
- [150:32]
A
Yeah. And everyone's like throwing all kinds of shit at me and that's fine. But I'm like. And there are a couple of people who privately had said to me, I know it's real too. I was shown this in whatever year, but I can't, I can't go out. I can't, I can't say publicly. So I understood, that's fine. But I. During that whole period, there are some really Some really snarky, nasty people that popped up out of nowhere and then have since disappeared. It's like, who are you? Who are these people?
- [151:08]
B
Interesting.
- [151:09]
A
Yeah. But anyway, I always knew. I always knew that would be vindicated. I just didn't know when. But now then you get, you know, Jacques Vallee talked about it in. In his Forbidden Science, one of his volumes, in his diaries. Oh, really? Yes, yes. He mentioned knowledge. It at the time when.
- [151:30]
B
At when the. As. When the astronaut died.
- [151:34]
A
When. No, prior. Before that.
- [151:36]
B
Before that.
- [151:38]
A
Yeah. I think in his volume that covers 2000 to 2009, when Davis actually interviewed Wilson. During that period, a valet knew about this. And it's in there also, Eric Davis himself, short of saying, I wrote them several times. Interviews that he did in 20, 19, 2020. And then just. Just at the briefing, Elizondo. This is one good thing Elizondo did. He mentioned that he introduced Davis by way of those notes, and he. He. So he obviously knows it's real. Like, that whole crowd, they all know it's all real. But there's been enough rough confirmation, and Davis himself, if you really listen to him, even in the briefing, it's quite obvious he makes it clear without saying he's got to be careful. These people, those notes themselves are not classified, but they talk about something that is highly classified. You know, they were private notes, so it's not like an official government document, but it is discussing something that is extremely sensitive.
- [152:43]
B
Let's take this opportunity. I got to get.
- [152:45]
A
Quick.
- [152:45]
B
Quick bathroom break. We'll jump right back in. We're back, folks. We're back. We were talking about. What were we talking about, Steve? Do you remember what we're talking about? We want to talk more about mil, the military aspect of this USO stuff.
- [152:59]
A
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [153:00]
B
What? Before we do that, one of my questions that I've been wanting to ask you is do you. I'm sure you do know about this base. I talked about it with Jesse when he was on here, that there was a decommissioned. I think it was a Navy base in the Bahamas that was specifically in charge of tracking some of this stuff, this underwater UFO stuff. Do you remember what I'm talking about specifically?
- [153:27]
A
Well, there was a. There's a system that was known as SOSIS when it was developed, the Sound Undersea Sonar System. And it was originally set up in that area, like, near the Bahamas. So I don't know if that's what he's referring to.
- [153:46]
B
No, this was a base. Steve, if you pull up the podcast I did with Jesse, it's in the timestamps. I think it's its own. Its own dedicated time.
- [153:54]
A
I should. I should know it. I could.
- [153:57]
B
I think Jesse was involved with it, too.
- [153:59]
A
Put into my second or third volume, Atlantic under.
- [154:03]
B
Is that what you were talking about, the Atlantic?
- [154:04]
A
Oh, tech. Yeah, tech.
- [154:07]
B
That's what it was.
- [154:07]
A
Okay. Me.
- [154:11]
B
So apparently what, What I. The way I understand it is they had some sort of. Maybe it was like a. Whoa. Holy macaroni. Bless you. Underground or not underground, underwater, sort of base to track and detect things. Something like this.
- [154:28]
A
Yeah. So I am aware of that, and I do have a little. I. I've learned a few things. Jesse may know more than I do. I don't know. I have to. To hear what he has to say.
- [154:38]
B
Yeah.
- [154:39]
A
One of the things that I try to do with this study is two things. So one is track the cases. And then the other is to try to understand the technological, military, political and other related developments that went on at the same time. So when I try to structure this book, these books, I break them into chapters, and at the beginning of each chapter I try to highlight, like, what's developing here, what's, what's our technology, what's our politics, what's. What's relevant. And so the development of a lot of the Navy systems goes. Has gone into that section of, of each book, the chapters. And so I remember I wrote about Sosis, and I have, I have information on autec. It's very. It's related. It's all similar. It's basically their system for probing into the world under the water. So off the top of my head, I don't really know what else to say about it. But it's, as that description there says, secretive testing of underwater vehicles and weapons systems.
- [155:41]
B
They called it the underwater area 51.
- [155:44]
A
Yeah. One interesting thing about it is its location. So that's an extremely active area. One thing I did when I collected all of these cases on my little Google Earth, I put a little yellow pin for every. As accurately as I could for every single USO case I could find. So that's why I can tell you Puerto Rico is a major hotspot. That's why I can tell you Florida is a major hotspot area. This whole region here. And so the fact that they've got something down there in the Bahamas, I just think is kind of interesting because that's a very, very active area for USOs in general.
- [156:16]
B
One of the fascinating things he also told me was there is this. There's this secretive NRO character who was tied into NASA, who was a part of this base somehow.
- [156:30]
A
Well, there's an underwater version of the nro and it's N U R O, National Underwater. Forget the acronym. There's a brilliant UFO podcaster on YouTube. UAP garbage.
- [156:49]
B
Oh, I've heard about him.
- [156:50]
A
Yeah, he's fairly smart guy. I, I've never talked with him, but if he's listening, I. I'm a big admirer of his.
- [156:57]
B
Yeah, Jesse's had. Jesse's had him on.
- [156:58]
A
Yes. Highly, highly intelligent.
- [157:00]
B
The National Underwater Reconnaissance Office.
- [157:02]
A
Yeah, that's it. Yeah.
- [157:03]
B
Responsible for underwater reconnaissance and operates primarily in the waters.
- [157:06]
A
Like the Soviet Union started in 1969. And it's. There's a history there. One, One thing that they were. They had. They collected a tremendous amount of intelligence against the Soviet Union out of the Sea of Otkotsk off the coast of Kamchatka there. And they actually were able to place a device on a undersea cable there, like a listening device to kind of tap into Soviet communications. And this is back in like 1970, 71, when they did that using the halibut. I think that was the. The submersible they used.
- [157:45]
B
Oh, wow.
- [157:45]
A
I think that was the one. Or maybe the sea, I think the halibut, I can't remember. But they were able to get very valuable intelligence for a good decade or more based on what they were doing there. They're like, yeah, that's. That's a whole story that we know a little bit about, and we need to know much, much more because there's no question that they have got information that we just don't know and may never know. They're. They are the underwater nro. They are incredibly secretive.
- [158:20]
B
Yeah, I heard that there's like probably over 20 intelligence or like three letter agencies that we don't even know exist that are within the government or the deep state. I'm sure that we'll probably. We'll probably never know about. Like, I never, I never would imagine. I never knew that the NRO had any to do with UFOs.
- [158:40]
A
Well, they're a good candidate for it, actually. But we didn't know the NRO existed until the 1990s. They existed in total secrecy for over 30 years. Yeah, the NSA, you know, jokingly referred to as no such agency, was completely secret for more than its first decade.
- [158:57]
B
Until the seventies it came out.
- [158:59]
A
Right. Well, there was a book in 1964 called the Invisible Government that. That mentioned it. That was one book that. And. But no, I don't really think it was truly appreciated what the NSA was. And then it, it came out more in the 70s and. But it's still actually this day, it's quite secretive, you know, but that was a secret agency. Its existence was classified for many years. And I remember I was friends with a congressional aide 15 plus years ago. I don't think he's alive anymore. But he, he told me like he's. He was interested in this whole subject and said he was convinced that there was a very substantial agency involved in all this that was still completely off. Off the boards. No one knew about it really. So I believe that there are. I mean, look, you know, I, I talked about we're having a pretend democracy a little while ago, I think that's right. So you can. What we really have, what the United States is, of course, is a, A massive empire that's trying to dominate, has always tried to dominate the world, especially since World War II, and as a result puts institutions and agencies in place that it doesn't think the public really needs to know about, even though we're supposedly supposed to have this open, transparent society.
- [160:18]
B
Right.
- [160:18]
A
So I think there's all kinds of secrecy that's going on. I, I would not be shocked at all that there were a bunch of three letter type agencies that we don't know about. It wouldn't. Wouldn't surprise me.
- [160:29]
B
Yeah, yeah. It's crazy stuff, man. It really is. And another thing that Catherine Fitz was telling me about is all the money that's going to these underground bunkers and underground, like, basically like underground cities that are connected by highways all around the country. And she's saying that it's very possible that like trillions of dollars are going to the. Going to these things.
- [160:52]
A
Yeah, I've, I've spoken with her about this, in fact, off the record, and that's a real possibility. You know, I, I used to know there was a researcher by the name of Richard Souder. Dr. Richard Souder, and see the guy that was killed. No, not to my. I think he's still alive.
- [161:11]
B
Okay.
- [161:11]
A
Yeah. You might be thinking of.
- [161:16]
B
I know there was a guy who talked about this stuff who was like mysteriously murdered or something.
- [161:20]
A
Yeah, Yeah. I know his case extremely well.
- [161:23]
B
Yeah.
- [161:23]
A
And it'll come to me in a second.
- [161:24]
B
Sure.
- [161:25]
A
Why my, My brain is spazzing out of the Souder. Yeah. So Richard Souder did a number of books in the 90s on, in the early 2000s on underground and also under sea potential bases. And, you know, a lot of his work was very good. So he looked into the technologies that we know exist to go deep under the ground and to go deep under the ocean floor, and that this is not an impossibility. We actually have the ability. All you really need is, you need the ability to dig. And if you're going to have a base permanently there, you've got to be able to extract oxygen from the water. But we've had that technology. That's what nuclear submarines are able to. They're not under the water with supplies of oxygen tanks. They have to extract oxygen out of the waters. I think it's called hydrolysis, whatever it is, and they're able to do that. So there are, at least theoretically it seems that it would be possible that you could have a whole array of underground and potentially undersea bases. It's theoretical. One thing that Richard found was he ran into this guy who did illustrations for the US Navy back in the late 60s and he was, was asked to develop a series of illustrations portraying undersea bases and operations. And he, he gave those illustrations to Richard, who published them in a book which back in those days I was his publisher, so I know about it quite well. He's publishing it now, but it's called Hidden in Plain Sight. It's a pretty good book.
- [163:10]
B
Interesting.
- [163:11]
A
Yeah. So to your, your question, what Catherine was asking about or talking about these potential of under, deep underground, kind of a labyrinthian underground connection basis, it's totally possible. Is it? Is it? You know, how true is it? That's a question. And you know, speaking against that, we really would, I would like to see some more actual investigative journalism on it. That's, that's somewhat recent that can, that can support it. But I wouldn't doubt that it's. That it's a possibility.
- [163:51]
B
Yeah.
- [163:54]
A
Thinking of the other guy, Schneider, Phil Schneider, of course, might be the guy you're thinking, oh yes, Phil Schneider. That's a whole other thing we could. I'd rather not get into Phil Schneider, but it's an interesting case and he does seem to have been murdered. I don't think he committed suicide.
- [164:11]
B
Right.
- [164:11]
A
I think he was killed.
- [164:15]
B
Another thing. So Catherine was explaining also talking a lot about these breakaway civilizations and the fact that if there is some breakaway civilization, it's most likely gonna be these bankers, these like top level bankers that control all the money.
- [164:31]
A
I think that's got to be true.
- [164:32]
B
And these people were taking some of this money, using money to explore space.
- [164:36]
A
Yeah.
- [164:36]
B
And explore these really so esoteric things.
- [164:38]
A
Yeah. She describes it really nicely.
- [164:41]
B
Yeah.
- [164:42]
A
And she says it's like imagine there's an open window in the room. Yeah. And the money's just flying out.
- [164:47]
B
Right, right.
- [164:48]
A
So yeah, she says it's like we don't have a closed system. It's open and it's, that's. So that could really be the case. I can't, you know how that works financially, I think she could probably speak a lot more intelligently than I can about it. But the way she describes it seems quite, quite logical.
- [165:07]
B
And then you have these characters like Elon Musk who gets all these crazy contracts to launch these satellites into space and do all this work, gets tons of money from the intelligence community and the US government to do all of this work. And this is probably responsible for a lot of the money that he's, that he's made and kept his companies alive. That publicly will basically say that all this stuff's. There's no, no evidence of this stuff. If they're, yeah. If these aliens exist, they sure are subtle. Like we don't see anything like this.
- [165:38]
A
I know.
- [165:39]
B
So strange to me.
- [165:40]
A
Yeah, like that's a really. Because he's made this statement many times and hey, I'm not smarter than Elon Musk. That's definitely, I'm certainly not. And I don't know as many things as he knows. I have no doubt about that. He knows far more. So it's hard for me to say, oh, he's full of it, but for him, he's made this statement a number of times that, you know, there's no, he's not seen any evidence that there's anything extraordinary out there or he would have known about it. And it's hard for me to know how to judge that. I mean there is a tremendous amount of actually very good space based evidence for anomalous activity. I out in Earth orbit and beyond, there's all kinds. I mean there was a young, a man named Jeff Challander. I knew Jeff. He's not alive anymore. He, he spent all of his time just pulling down NASA video footage from all the NASA space missions and just looking through them. And he wasn't just some wide eyed, gullible believer. He was, I think, a very, very astute. And he just kept finding all kinds of crazy things in these NASA missions. Objects out there that just did not make a lot of sense. Objects doing apparent U turns at one point, objects moving in angular motions in space. There are things that you can put out there to, to explain some of them. Maybe like a booster rocket went off and ice crystals moved off at an angle. But there's, there's a lot of these types of things that seem very bizarre and they're not all American. You have a lot of statements from American and Soviet cosmonauts quite explicit, quite explicit about bizarre anomalies. There's a, the Popovich couple, Marina and Pavel Popovich of the Soviet Union, both highly regarded cosmonauts in that country. Both spoke quite openly about these types of things in orbit that, that they were aware of or had seen. And quite a few Soviet missions where they talked about this and enough American missions as well. Well, that, you know, I don't think you can just dismiss that. So for Elon Musk to say, you know, to dismiss it all, which, with a wave of the hand, as he seems to do, I, I find very curious.
- [167:57]
B
Yeah. Have you heard of the, the guy who allegedly works for him, who works for the nro, who, I think Diana Pasulka wrote about him in her first book, who has all these patents and like worked with this dude, Chris Bledsoe, and apparently like read him into all this super secret stuff. Stuff, talked about all these crazy.
- [168:14]
A
Oh, this is the high level NASA individual, I think.
- [168:17]
B
Yeah, there was two of them. There was one of them named Hal Poven Meyer, who apparently like mapped the moon. And then there was this other guy, I think his name was Tim, who Yeah. Who apparently like said all kinds of stuff to Chris, like told him like we brought him to Cape Canaveral, which is like two and a half hours from here.
- [168:35]
A
Yeah.
- [168:36]
B
And said that when you go through the gates, just play your favorite song in your head because these people are trying to read your mind and.
- [168:42]
A
Very interesting, Very, very bizarre. Yeah, she. That's a good, that's an interesting book. And I don't know what to say about this. I mean I've, I've spoken with Chris Bledsoe myself a few times. A number of times. And is that believable? Yeah, that's totally believable.
- [168:58]
B
Yeah.
- [168:58]
A
Yeah. I could believe, I could believe what she wrote. I don't, I can't say that I know, but I could believe it.
- [169:07]
B
Yeah. I've had, I've been reading a lot of UFO researchers who have various takes on Chris Bledsoe and quite a few of them have come out and, and made the assertion that he is like a modern day Paul Benowitz.
- [169:28]
A
Well, one thing that I can say, I actually did an extended interview with Chris a couple of years ago. I think it might have been, might have been the first extended interview that he did with anyone on, on social media? Could be.
- [169:43]
B
When was it?
- [169:45]
A
2017, 2018? A while ago, I think. So a couple of things. First of all, Chris is a absolutely super decent human being. His whole family, they're very good people. And his original sightings, meeting the one from 20 2007, I don't think there's any question about it. There's, in fact, just recently didn't. A number of new people have come out to attest to that. Certainly there's him, there's his son and the other witnesses. I think all have come out. I, I don't think there's any reason to doubt that. And that's an extraordinary UFO stuff. There was a craft that they definitely.
- [170:22]
B
Saw in the woods in North Carolina. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [170:25]
A
So I have no reason to doubt that at all. And, and the subsequent activities that have had that have happened on his property, which I have not been to. So I, you need to be upfront about that. You know, it's hard for me to say I wasn't. I've not been there. I've heard different types of stories. But I, I think it's fair to say that there is some odd things that are going on there now. Is it an op or not? I, I don't know.
- [170:52]
B
Yeah. I, I, I tend to, I, I don't think he's making any of this stuff up. I feel like my, my gut told me when he was explaining all this stuff to me was that like, this is something that he really experienced. The thing that just raises my hairs is the fact that all these people from Intelligence and, and NASA are, like, clinging to him.
- [171:14]
A
Well, there's a couple of ways to look at it. One is that it's an op and they're, they're screwing with them. Yeah. A la Benowitz. Okay. The other possibility is that they know that there's something to this.
- [171:25]
B
Yeah. And they want to understand it better.
- [171:28]
A
Yeah. Like that's, why would that not be a possibility? One of the things about, about Stephen Greer is that, you know, he develops these protocols. He calls them the CE5 protocol. Yeah.
- [171:39]
B
Yeah.
- [171:39]
A
Okay. So people had different opinions on this, but there's no question in my mind that there is a consciousness element to this phenomenon that's real. And there is no question as well, that Greer did get interest from the National Security State. I think partly because of this. You know, one of the things he talked about, and it's true, as far as I can see, it's absolutely true, is he met with a gentleman named John Peterson of the Arlington Institute, who is for many years on the short list of, you know, DOD secretaries and things like that. He never was one, but he's, he's up there. And also the then director of the CIA, James Woolsey. Woolsey and their wives. Yeah, all of their power.
- [172:21]
B
They went to some dinner together.
- [172:22]
A
Yeah, they had a dinner. And this is, I think in the late 90s. I think. Yeah, no, early 90s, because Woolsey was director of CIA in the early 90s, you know, under Clinton.
- [172:36]
B
Yeah.
- [172:37]
A
So why would they do that? I mean that's, you know, in the early 90s.
- [172:42]
B
Is there any proof that he had that meeting?
- [172:45]
A
Yes, there is because the argument is over what the, what it constituted. Guerrero always called it a briefing.
- [172:53]
B
Yeah.
- [172:53]
A
And they wrote, they issued a letter. So I, I'm sure I have it somewhere. It's searchable, it's got to be searchable. Where they just said this was not a briefing, this was an informal, like a dinner as a, you know, and they were, they were clearly furious that he talked about it.
- [173:13]
B
Wow.
- [173:13]
A
They were, they were clearly very unhappy about that. So I think, yeah, he did meet with them. And then you have to ask yourself, you know, I mean, Greer can talk about this much more forthrightly than I can, but he wasn't famous at that time. Like who, who knew him? You know, he was this guy who had just gotten into the UFO field.
- [173:34]
B
Yeah. Medical doctor.
- [173:37]
A
Talking about crop circles in England in the early 90s. He did a little bit of that. He gets this interest from these very high level people. Why.
- [173:47]
B
I had a gentleman on here a couple weeks ago who brought me a newspaper article that he had, he paid for some subscription to some website that could pull up PDFs of like ancient news articles. And he was basically making the case that essentially what the news article showed was the description of Greer, the. A publishing in the newspaper of Greer, how he got married, when he got married to his wife and all this stuff. And it was like a little blurb in the newspaper how he got married at the Baja Institute in Hia. And I've never heard him talk about any of this stuff. And this was like in the, I think it was in the 70s or late 70s maybe. And this guy was making the case and that according. Because that he was in Haifa, working in Haifa, got married there and all this stuff that now he's essentially massaged.
- [174:38]
A
God. Well, first of all, I would never comment on some aspect of a person's life like that. I have no, no understanding of it. And it's, it is not for me to get involved in anything like that. I, if, even if I had an opinion on it, I would not offer it publicly, but I don't think I even have an opinion on that.
- [174:55]
B
Yeah.
- [174:55]
A
So I'm just gonna pass.
- [174:56]
B
Yeah. Yeah. It's just, it's just interesting that people can come up with these, these crazy theories that, you know, who knows if they have legs or not. But like, again, this just, this is part of the territory when you're trying to navigate these things in the public and these people that come out and make these extraordinary claims and, you know, ignore certain things and they, they, they talk very confidently about things and make extraordinary claims, but then, you know, leave certain things out that may not be foundational or may not support their story. You know, it's just part of this, I feel like it's part of the things that you have to sort of put out there and question when you're put in the place of, of trying to evaluate whether these people are legitimate or not.
- [175:45]
A
Well, one thing that I always have to remind myself of is that this whole subject, you know, I've kind of referred. Alluded to this a few times in this conversation with you, but it's of profound significance. And so that means there are people who have a stake on the pro side and on the con side that want to keep this where it is because it's highly disruptive. And so there's going to be intelligence community interaction with this subject. That is a fact. There is way too much at stake. And those individuals will use their assets in establishment media, they will use their assets in academia when appropriate.
- [176:27]
B
It.
- [176:27]
A
They will use their assets wherever they can within the community itself if need be. And there's always been very high paranoia within the UFO community. These conversations happen frequently enough. It's like, who do you think's working for.
- [176:42]
B
Everyone's an op.
- [176:43]
A
Yeah. I mean, it comes up frequently and, or it's come up frequently enough. I suppose I can say. And hey, I can just say to you very honestly, I do not know.
- [176:54]
B
Right.
- [176:55]
A
I cannot confirm anyone.
- [176:57]
B
Yeah.
- [176:58]
A
Specifically like that. I can absolutely say they're working for the, the government or the intel community. I've had suspicions. I continue to have suspicions and I, I'm not going to mention who those, I think those people are. There's, there's no win for me in that.
- [177:13]
B
Yeah.
- [177:13]
A
I'm not going to get into that. But.
- [177:14]
B
Well, if anyone wins, it's the intelligence agencies. Because, because, I mean, According to the YouTube comments, I'm an up. And then I question, I question myself.
- [177:22]
A
I've been called it many times. I've been called massad. Seriously, do you know? Yeah, I don't know what to say about things like that. So I've been.
- [177:32]
B
Well, I think it works, I think it, like I said, I think it works in the. If there is some sort of general opportunity in the intelligence community to cover up secrets, the fact that everyone on social media thinks everyone is working for an intelligence agency is a benefit to them.
- [177:54]
A
Absolutely. It's, it's a big, it's a really big problem. Let's, let's talk about this for a bit, if you don't mind. So I, you know, I got into this whole field in the 90s when conspiracy theories were not really that much done. Yeah, you know, they were a little, there were people out there. I mean Jim Mars had already written his great book Crossfire, the Plot to Kill Kennedy. I was good friends with Jim Mars, I loved Jim Mars, he was a great man. But Anyway, like the 90s were, it was, you were kind of out there and we were developing as a society a much more like critical view. And then, you know, for me 911 was what put me over the top by the way. 911 put me and I think a lot of people full on in the government as actively lying about basically every single thing. Like I went there and I'm still there. But the problem is when you think that everything is an op. So that's a bit of a problem for me too. Like I said earlier, like I almost wrote a book on false flags and the history of it. So like there are lots of hops, like they happen. But when you reflexively. I'm going to be careful how I say this, conclude that every single thing coming at you is like someone's motivated for some reason and that that's a real problem because think about what that does. If you were to act like that in your personal life. Like if your friend has something to say to you and you're not listening to what your friend's saying, instead you're thinking, what's his motivation for telling me that?
- [179:44]
B
Totally.
- [179:45]
A
That's a great way to destroy every friendship you've ever had, every relationship you've ever had, every society that's ever existed. It's a really dangerous solvent for the certain amount of social coherent cohesion. We have to have, have, you have to have. There's got to be a way to have some trust in things that come at you. But the problem that we have is we have good reason not to trust a lot. Like, we have really good reason. So. But I do think what we've fallen into is. I call it a kind of a postmodern trap, which is when someone makes a claim about anything, frequently from a lot of people, the first thing you'll hear is, oh, that person worked for whatever agency, right? They've got. They have an agenda. That person believes this other thing in politics that I also don't agree with, and therefore I'm not going to subscribe to what they have to say here. And so, in other words, we're doing identity politics whether we realize it or not. We're not listening. The one thing we're not doing is hearing their message. We're not actually listening to their information or we're not evaluating the information. We're judging the person because we think they're an OP and they work for this organization here. And the fact is, when you look at the UFO knowledge sphere over many years, go back to the 1950s, this is a period I've studied a lot. There were a lot of military insiders in the 1950s who were totally of the belief that we need to get information on this subject out there, and they put themselves out there. So because they were working for the army or the Navy, am I supposed to then say, oh, well, they've got some kind of. They've got an agenda to prove that's a bad place to be because, you know, it. It prevents you from actually studying their, their information. And the fact is that there are people from every part of the spectrum here in this field that have something to say. And it's a real. We're putting ourselves at a great disadvantage if we, if we're playing identity politics with every single person out there and we're judging them, are they on the good side or the bad side? That's. That's not good because there's information coming in from a lot of different places, it seems to me.
- [182:00]
B
Yes, which is why I appreciate when people like you who have a pragmatic view of all of this stuff and are able to take the information from all these cases and sort of see where they all fit together and maybe where they don't and provide that to people in a balanced way. I think that's, that's, that's super valuable and rare.
- [182:18]
A
I never thought of. When I was much younger, I didn't think of myself as a pragmatist by nature. I didn't really know that. But over the years I've seen that and, and I believe in That I believe in realism when it comes to global politics or when it comes to national things. I try to be what I consider to be realistic rather than dogmatic and ideologically driven. I've got my own beliefs about all kinds of things. But I also realize that the world is. You know, I had a. I grew up with a very liberal mother and a pretty conservative father. And so that was kind of good because I was able to appreciate two very radically different worldviews that each of my parents had and to understand where they were coming from and to respect where they were coming from, which I. I do to this day. And that's. That was good for me. And I think that when, you know, as. As we're in the world today, I, I just. I take it as a given that there's always going to people, people out there who don't see the world the way I do, and what am I supposed to like, condemn them and just say, well, you're. You're morally suspect because you have a different perspective on the world than I do. That's kind of ridiculous. But, yeah, we do it. We do it all the time. People on the right and the left, they all do it. And it's. It's very unfortunate. We get all apocalyptic about things and we live in very dangerous times in many ways. I'm not going to deny that. Very dangerous on many levels. But the fact is that it is. Is not for me to. To write someone off just because they see the world differently than I do do.
- [184:02]
B
Right. Well, Richard, that was three hours.
- [184:06]
A
You kidding?
- [184:06]
B
That was fantastic.
- [184:08]
A
A lot of fun. I enjoyed this.
- [184:09]
B
Thank you. Tell people where they can find your new book on USOs and anything else you're doing.
- [184:16]
A
Yeah, well, I have my book on USOs. It's sold on Amazon and it's in ebook. It's paperback and hardcover. And this week I expect the audiobook finally to be out. It's been submitted. I'm just waiting for Amazon to approve it. So that's. That's, that's nice. I have a website called richardallmembers.com and there's a paywall, but there's a lot of free stuff there. People can go take a look at it. There's a lot of information there. Great community. I can't speak highly enough about the members of the site. And I got my own YouTube channel. It's just called Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure. People can.
- [184:52]
B
There we go. Look at that. JFK and UFOs. Oh, that's something we didn't Go into.
- [184:59]
A
Wow, that's a really wonderful. I had another fantastic guest for that.
- [185:03]
B
Going back to what we were just saying about how everyone has their own belief system surrounding everything, I've noticed that everyone has their own flavor of the JFK assassination.
- [185:15]
A
Well, he was definitely killed in a conspiracy, in my opinion.
- [185:18]
B
Yes.
- [185:19]
A
I would definitely lay the most of it at the CIA and the. The deep, deep state. I think Kennedy's assassination. I liken it to Agatha Christie's murder on the Orient Express. And plot, spoiler. Everyone did it in that book.
- [185:36]
B
Everyone did it.
- [185:37]
A
Everyone had a motive to kill this guy, and that's jfk. He was. His biggest problem, I feel, is that he really believed he was the president who could run things. And he ran into a bureaucracy that saw him as a threat on multiple levels. Levels. So you had Federal Reserve, you had Vietnam, you had. UFOs are part of that. That's not right. A trivial part of it.
- [185:58]
B
Not the whole thing, though.
- [185:59]
A
No, no. I think the. The nuclear issue, you know, he was talking about nuclear disarmament with the. With the Soviet.
- [186:05]
B
Yep.
- [186:06]
A
So what he was showing. And then Cuba, that whole thing, and shutting down Operation Mongoose and all of this. So JFK showed that he was. He was an enemy on many fronts. He had said, famously, he wanted to scatter the CIA to the winds. And he tried. You know, he fired Alan Dulles and Bissell and. But he. Yeah, they knew. He was a real problem. He was a serious problem. And, you know, what was the ultimate motivation? I think the ultimate motivation was they were like, no way we're going to let this guy run the country for another month, because he is. He is a danger on too many levels.
- [186:44]
B
Levels.
- [186:44]
A
Yeah, that's what they thought. There's my book.
- [186:47]
B
I totally agree. There we go. The history of USOs. Unidentified submerged objects, volume one, with two and three to come.
- [186:54]
A
Yeah, they'll be out this year. All of the cases. I've written them all. I'm happy with how they read. I keep adding new cases, but basically I have to be done. And what is required is just breaking them into chapters and doing those little chapter introductions that I was telling you about. Amazing. So it's. It'll be out.
- [187:12]
B
Well, thanks again. I really appreciate your time.
- [187:14]
A
My pleasure. Thank you.
- [187:14]
B
We have some Patreon questions for our beautiful Patreon subscribers, so we'll do that separately from the podcast. We'll rip through a couple of these questions, if you don't mind.
- [187:22]
A
Yeah, gladly.
- [187:24]
B
But that's all for the podcast, so thanks again.
- [187:26]
A
It was my pleasure.
- [187:26]
B
Good night, folks.