Loading summary
Transcript167 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hello and welcome back to It's a Very Exciting Time, a podcast by a UFO nerd and his tolerant friend. My name is Scott and I've been fascinated by the phenomenon my whole life.
- [00:11]
B
I'm Chuck. I'm an aerospace nerd and a tolerant friend.
- [00:15]
A
I started this podcast because since 2017 there have been shocking revelations. From news of secret Pentagon programs to confirmed videos of astonishing craft. In a nutshell, now that we know the government has recovered non human technology,
- [00:31]
B
or at least we will after NASA releases photos of the monolith on the moon.
- [00:36]
A
I can't wait to talk about that. Yeah, it raises a natural question. If UFOs are real, what else? Suddenly, some of these other parts of the phenomenon that seemed unlikely are pulled into the realm of the possible.
- [00:50]
B
It may still be unlikely, but even if it's new science and not aliens,
- [00:55]
A
it's a very exciting time. I am so curious to see if the woo made it through this time. Every week. I'm trying to like, modulate it a little bit. Last week it was completely silent.
- [01:06]
B
I mean, yeah, yeah, I. I did hear a little bit of woo, so maybe that's a good sign. Were you just trying to be like, quiet? Like.
- [01:20]
A
Yeah, like I'm watching my volume meter and it pegs out. The incentive raised my voice and also I'm like,
- [01:30]
B
Well, audio difficulties. That's. I don't think audio quality is why people watch our show. So.
- [01:37]
A
Yeah, well, speaking of, you may notice some video hiccups. Audio hiccups this episode. And that's because my co host is in New Zealand.
- [01:51]
B
Yeah, in New Zealand.
- [01:53]
A
Chuck. I have to say I'm very disappointed. You know, I was expecting to see, you know, hobbit holes in the background or like rolling windswept mountain vistas, and instead you appear to be in cyberpunk or Las Vegas.
- [02:08]
B
You know what? Actually, it does kind of look like Las Vegas. We are actually staying in a casino, like under a back. Actually literally under the baccarat tables. They're like a couple floors up, but. But yeah, behind me is like some museum, like Museum of Modern Art or something like that. And it's like, it is so hard to find a beautiful vista that is quiet enough to record that doesn't mind you talking.
- [02:41]
A
Yeah, that's. That's the catch, isn't it?
- [02:43]
B
Yeah.
- [02:44]
A
Um, so trying hard not to become the. The horrible American tourist that everyone complains about.
- [02:50]
B
The. The one in the library who's podcasting.
- [02:54]
A
Oh, boy. Yeah, maybe. Maybe it's better you're recording from the hotel Room. All right, so yeah, in the intro, Monuments on the moon, buddy. Let's get into it. We're weird this week. Yeah. So UAP whistleblower and former director of the Pentagon's UFO program. A tip. Lou Elizondo in an interview on a Japanese news program called Nico Nico News, which was very strange because of course everything's being routed through a translator, casually drops in the middle of the interview, quote, there's also photographs that I don't believe have been made public yet that shows on the lunar surface what appear to be large monolithic structures with right angle cuts. And I believe these photos, if they have not been released yet, may be released soon. They're certainly very intriguing. Looking at these objects from space.
- [03:55]
B
We got the how long ago was it that there was the like face on the moon news thing.
- [04:02]
A
So that's on Mars. Cydonia. I'm actually glad you brought it up. So there is a famous mountain range on Mars and there's a particular photo of it that taken at the particular time of day, it looks like a face. And it is, as you can imagine, the source of a number of conspiracy theories that NASA accidentally released a photo of the face. Then later they had to release like doctor photos to make it look less like a face. And of course NASA the whole time is like, you guys, it's not, it's
- [04:33]
B
just a frickin rock.
- [04:35]
A
Like it's a phenomenon called paradigia. It means you're gonna see things like that aren't there. And there is a long, long history of every lunar and Martian photo being scrutinized for like, is that a crab? Like is that a brick? And NASA's like, the scale is all wrong, you guys. It's just a rock that happens to have a right angle on it. It does happen sometimes.
- [04:58]
B
Does happen. Yeah.
- [04:59]
A
Yeah.
- [05:00]
B
So I mean, do you think that's going to be the case here?
- [05:04]
A
It's really, really hard to say. On the one hand, Lou has a bit of egg on his face from promising revelatory photos that turned out to be not much of anything. On the other hand, he's saying they haven't been released yet. The ones that have been released. Yeah, I'm pretty confident saying they're nothing. There's a recurring trend, by the way, in the UFO file drops from the government where they will release things from NASA that contain UAPs that N has pretty definitively decided what they are. And they're not aliens, they're just things in space. You know, I think this is like that, that Said, if you remember Stephen Greer, the founder of the disclosure project, he had that big press conference back in the 90s where he had all the whistleblowers come out. One of the guys that he had talking was a dude named Carl Wolf, who was a photo technician in the military. And he was called in to NASA to repair one of their photo machines. And his story is that one of the photo techs showed him the non airbrushed photos of structures and cities on the moon. And his, the guy told him like, yeah, I'm not supposed to show you any of this, but yeah, like we airbrushed the shit out of all of them.
- [06:27]
B
What?
- [06:27]
A
That's.
- [06:29]
B
Man, I feel like they must have been messing with him maybe.
- [06:34]
A
There also have been remote viewers who for years have claimed to see structures and bases on the moon and on Mars. All of this comes down to how much you believe these people who are telling these stories. Whether you think it's likely that, you know, there is a non human intelligence visiting us and they have a base on the far side of the moon. I don't know, man. Like it's, it's one I take with a pretty hefty grain of salt. The fact that Lou is saying it is really interesting, but I'm not holding my breath on it.
- [07:07]
B
Yeah, okay. Yeah, makes sense. Well, I mean, that brings up.
- [07:13]
A
That said. Sorry.
- [07:16]
B
Yeah, so you, you are probably going to bring this up. Did we get more file drops this week?
- [07:24]
A
We did. That's our next topic on the agenda. But before we get to that.
- [07:29]
B
But it wasn't in that.
- [07:30]
A
So former NASA administrator Mike Gold was recently interviewed by journalist Ross Coulthardt. Mike Gold, if you remember, is going to be part of the Disclosure Foundation's team who is going to investigate all of NASA's files. So that's an exciting thing. My Gold is part of that. And Ross Coulthard asked him in the wake of Elizondo's comments, are you guys going to look into lunar anomalies? And Gold says, you know, we're certainly happy to take a look. If you look at the team we've assembled, it's composed of Dr. Manelli, Max Derrickshani, who has done wonderful work and has done wonderful episodes with you, Ross. And Ross cuts him off. He goes, well, let's go through that. So Max has a. Wow, I got my transcript way wrong. It says Max has raiders. Max has rendered as raised. Raised, probably, yeah, raised. Anyway, Max has found a huge number of incredibly interesting anomalies, including the possibility of rectilinear artificial Structures on the surface of the moon and even vehicle tracks that are not explained by any previous lunar missions. Will you be investigating those now? I went back, if you're interested, they're linked. In the show notes, Dr. Derek Shawnee has multiple interviews with Ross Coulthard. He does talk about this stuff. I don't think he's quite as overt in his claims as Ross is saying. Ross say to him, how confident are you that there are artificial structures on the moon? And he'll say, I'm 50% confident. And that's like, okay, a NASA scientist say now, for a NASA scientist, that's quite a high estimate.
- [09:17]
B
I mean, yeah, 50% is pretty high. Yeah.
- [09:20]
A
But for a normal person, it's like, oh, you're only 50% confident. So this is not a thing, you know? So, yeah, hard to say, but it's interesting that I didn't know about these interviews. I hadn't watched.
- [09:33]
B
Yeah.
- [09:33]
A
So there is even within NASA some interest in lunar anomalies, and that kind of plugs into what Lou is saying. So Michael responded. He said, yeah, we will absolutely be looking at those. It's why Max is part of this effort. He's done so much fantastic work to point out these anomalies. So asking the question and trying to point out to NASA, Congress, the FBI, anyone who's interested, that these are anomalies. What are these? What more study can we do?
- [10:06]
B
Yeah, that's really interesting. I would. I'd love to know how they're getting the imagery. Is it. I mean, it's probably from a satellite and so. But you can. You can do, like, distant images and get some, like, perception of depth. So, yeah, I don't know.
- [10:24]
A
That's another thing that's interesting about Lou's comment. He said these monoliths are very intriguing. Looking at these objects from space, that implies it's a lunar orbiter photo.
- [10:35]
B
But.
- [10:35]
A
But I think most of us, when you hear lunar monoliths, we kind of assume that there's going to be, like, boots on the ground photos, you know, like Neil Armstrong took a photo of the black monolith from 2001, and the photo's just been suppressed all these years. That doesn't seem to be the case, but who knows? There's also. It's really unclear whether NASA has classified information. Oh, they're not supposed to, in theory. They are civilian science organization and everything they take is released to the public. But there have been claims for years that they do have classified information or that they airbrush photos or that they have been not necessarily hiding from the public, but maybe burying in the bottom of information so that the public doesn't find it. And that ignores all the claims that NASA, from its very earliest days, was partnered with the US military to do secret satellite launches and stuff. Which is true.
- [11:41]
B
It's true, yeah.
- [11:41]
A
Presumably those files are classified. So if you accept that they're launching military stuff, there's some classified things. So, yeah, the instant you crack the door to NASA has some classified files, it raises the possibility that they have more classified files. And this is the thing we're always talking about, right? Like the instant you open the door to maybe you can't trust everything this government agency says publicly. It's really, really hard to know where to stop believing that they're lying to you. Yeah.
- [12:16]
B
So I know that there are. So James Webb has a process where you can request that your images be withheld from the public for a certain amount of time. So we know they have that. We also know, like you said, they do participate in Space Force launches, and those are very highly classified. So we know that there is at least some classified information flowing through. And you have to assume that there's CCTV footage of that classified satellite somewhere. Yeah. So, yeah, they, they have to be withholding some things, I believe.
- [13:00]
A
If you were to press me to the wall and say, hey, what do you, what do you think? Is NASA lying to you? I don't think NASA is necessarily lying to us, but I do think NASA is aware that in theory, everything they record has to be released to the public. And there have been, if you are in the habit of watching NASA, live streams of launches and astronaut stuff, it's really, really common for them to cut the feed. Now, if you're thinking practically, the answer is shit isn't always in a position to get through. Right. Like, recording video from orbit is incredibly complicated. But if you're conspiracy minded, there's room for, you know, they've already got a habit of cutting the feed at times. Maybe they cut the feed at opportune moments as well. I'm just saying, right? Like there's if. If you asked me, like, what degree of confidence do you have in a government agency, right? And you say CIA like low tens. Oh, yeah, right, right. FBI, 20s, arrow, like zero. NASA. I'm saying like 80, like 80% confident that they're on the level. Like, I'm not willing to close the door entirely on the possibility that NASA has secrets that they're not telling us that are maybe related to UFOs, but of all the agencies, the ones I'm most like, yeah, those guys are probably on the level.
- [14:33]
B
They're probably. Okay, yeah. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right on that. And. And I guess my question is, so we know that NASA has to have some classified info. Are they a classifying organization? And I think that's an interesting question, too. Like, are they just observing things flowing through, or do they actually classify their own things? I think that's a separate question. And I'm. I don't know. I'm like 5050 on that. But I do think they're mostly on the level. Yeah.
- [15:07]
A
Yeah. So, yeah. Weird comment from Linda. Monoliths on the moon. And of course, monolith is such a loaded word, right? It is an accurate word when you are describing a large stone structure, but it is inextricably tied with 2001 and sci fi. And, like, everybody is immediately picturing the black monolith and that. That's probably not what he's describing.
- [15:32]
B
I mean, they called it rectilinear. Like, how can you not picture.
- [15:37]
A
Yeah. All right.
- [15:39]
B
So everyone's laughing at me in the background.
- [15:42]
A
Rightly so. It's a silly topic to open the show with. So, moving on to our next topic. Whistleblower amnesty has been in the news a lot. We've talked about this in the last couple episodes that, like Anna Paulina Luna and Representative Burleson have both said that they have been in talks with the White House who are strongly considering some form of amnesty for whistleblowers. And one of the things you said that was really insightful is, what does that mean? Like, amnesty implies immunity from crimes. Is that what we're talking about? And then at the same time, they say the word amnesty, but what they're describing is we want these whistleblowers to be able to come out and break their security oaths. So are you giving them preemptive amnesty for committing the crime of violating your security oath, or is there, like. The whole thing is unclear and we're assuming there are lawyers in the back room arguing out the details, but it's one of those things that always kind of bugged me a little bit that I don't really know what they mean by that. Yeah, well, UAP whistleblower Matthew Brown, who I should point out has in the past made some unusual statements. Right. I like Matthew Brown. His interviews about Immaculate Constellation were always on the level, but then he had his Twitter account and his substack where he posted some kind of unusual occult or esoteric stuff that made Every kind of wonder about him for a little bit. Well, he's back with a new substack and, and thankfully this one I can wholeheartedly recommend. I'm going to be quoting heavily from it here, but it is absolutely worth your time reading. And basically it's Matthew Brown talking about the idea of offering amnesty to UAP whistleblowers in a very informed, reasonable way. First of all, he says, members of Congress, government officials, journalists and disclosure advocates are publicly discussing whether the executive branch should grant some form of amnesty to individuals with classified UAP knowledge in exchange for their cooperation. These proposals avoid the obvious question, amnesty for what? What exactly are the American people being asked to forgive?
- [18:17]
B
Yeah, that's a really interesting way of phrasing it too. Like the American people are forgiving. Yeah, we don't think about it like that. But in cases of like international amnesty, that's absolutely it. What are the American people being asked to support? Absolutely fascinating.
- [18:36]
A
Brown continues. He says in a debate thus far lacking specifics. Let us now add some. The crimes committed under the authority of the Legacy Program include subversion of the constitutional rule of law and the implementation of secret laws, secret courts, secret orders and secret police conspiracy to undermine the sovereignty of the United States government and its peoples, the aiding and abetting of foreign powers, the ratification and implementation of treaties and international agreements without congressional authorization violating the sovereignty of tribal lands and peoples, creating state sponsored monopolies and other actions incompatible with a free market. The suppression of free speech, the suppression of free scientific, historical and public inquiry, the use of intelligence tradecraft to destroy marriages, families and businesses, the home invasions intended to gaslight and terrify the use of less than lethal weapons, including directed energy weapons against American citizens, human experimentation, including behavioral and genetic experimentation, kidnappings, forced disappearances and murders.
- [19:56]
B
That is a rap sheet.
- [19:59]
A
Right? That's.
- [20:03]
B
You know, when I think about the whistleblower amnesty, what I'm thinking about is the NDAs. I'm not really thinking about like no one person did all of those things.
- [20:15]
A
Correct.
- [20:16]
B
And I don't think it's like blanket immunity for everything for everyone.
- [20:23]
A
You're hitting the nail on this. And, and Brown keeps talking about this. He'll get into it. But yes, you are accurately hitting the discomfort here, which is when you hear the government say we're offering amnesty to Legacy Program members, we assume what they mean is so they can come out and tell us what happened. And we assume they're uncomfortable doing so because they have signed security agreements that they not do so. But, but also the things he Listed here. None of these are a surprise to anybody who's been listening to the program for a while. These are exactly the claims of Lou Elizondo and David Grush and various other people. If any of those things are true, someone committed crimes, are those the offering amnesty to? So Brown continues, he says this list is not exhaustive. Oh boy. And will grow as additional information comes to light. Given the gravity of these charges, the American people deserve full transparency regarding the precise terms of any proposed amnesty and a meaningful voice in deciding whether it should be granted.
- [21:38]
B
Yeah, that's. That is a really interesting point because otherwise there's sort of like an interesting race where the people who did the really awful things might rush to like get their amnesty before someone catches up and actually nails it down.
- [22:03]
A
You could not for this next book. So Matthew Brown posted this on Twitter, kind of saying, hey, I have some thoughts on amnesty. And Stanford immunologist and UAP researcher Gary Nolan, who's one of our favorites on the show, responded, I don't think everything should be under amnesty, but if you want the dam to break, Strategic amnesty of some acts, while not a popular position, can open up a world of understanding. Prosecutors use it very effectively to get the lower level perpetrators to open up to move towards higher levels of accountability. Many things I agree are unforgivable. I also understand deciding where that deciding line should be will be difficult. Some, most at risk of extreme accusations will fight any amnesty. Some at extreme risk will push for total amnesty for obviously selfish reasons. The problem will be deciding motives of anyone positioning in any direction, search for motives. The logic is easy. Understanding motives is not.
- [23:15]
B
Gary Nolan. I love this guy. Everything he writes is so informative. But I especially love the bit about moving towards higher levels of accountability. That's the goal.
- [23:29]
A
It shifts it from we want the truth and we're willing to give you amnesty to get it to more of a prosecuting mafia bosses kind of thing. Like yeah, yeah, yeah, you're the low level guy who just inherited an 80 year old program. You didn't do any of these things, but you can give us the information to help us get to the people who did.
- [23:49]
B
Right? Yeah, really funny idea to think about. Think about them as like low level drug dealers. Like, yeah, right. Well that's exactly the move the craft in.
- [24:01]
A
Yeah, that's exactly the example Burleson gave last time is some of these people that we're talking to are people who got promoted into the program and went, whoa, wait a minute, like there are crimes here in a portfolio that I now Manage what do I do? You know. So I think their argument here is we want the truth to come out. And both because of security oaths and also because crimes have been committed in. It's not going to come out unless we do something. And offering amnesty to current people who haven't done anything or maybe the things they've done have been in the service of things, you know, whatever. I think Gary Nolan hit the nail on the head. Where that line is drawn is going to be complicated, but it should be drawn somewhere. And anybody who says there should be no amnesty is being unrealistic. And anyone who says there should be total amnesty for everyone is also being unrealistic.
- [25:07]
B
So one thing I wonder about is whether a line can be drawn, whether it even is a line or. I don't know anything about amnesty, but I always get the impression that it was the kind of thing that a judge decides and judges do have that kind of difficult decision making capability. They have those skills already. And maybe we aren't, maybe we aren't drawing a line. Maybe we're building.
- [25:37]
A
Once again you have excellently set me up for this next section. So I'm gonna pause here for a moment and recommend to Chuck and to anybody watching or listening, go read this Matthew Brown article. It's a great. And he gets way more into the weeds than I'm doing. I'm pulling excerpts, so you get the idea. But like he. It's a very long article, it is worth your time. But yeah, he talks about exactly what you're talking about. He says amnesty is being used as a catch all for several distinct policy tools necessary to achieve lawful disclosure. But amnesty for past conduct, immunity from prosecution and release from secrecy obligations are not the same thing. A pardon by itself does not release a witness from classification rules, non disclosure agreements, contractual restraints, private retaliation, civil liability, professional blacklisting or institutional persecution. Amnesty may pardon a crime, but it does not automatically free the truth. And he really hammers on this that they're talking about release from non disclosure agreements and they're saying amnesty and those are two different things. And maybe they're being under discussion at the same time and they're both part of a larger tool set. That's fine, but we're muddying the waters when we talk about wanting whistleblowers to be free to talk and calling that amnesty.
- [27:09]
B
Right, and in the past we've talked about it as whistleblower protections, not whistleblower amnesty. I think amnesty was just one part. Right?
- [27:20]
A
Yeah. And I think he hit the nail on the Head when he said a pardon doesn't release a witness from classification rules or non disclosure agreement contracts, private retaliation, civil liability, professional blacklisting. And those are the things that whistleblower protections have struggled with, right, that like you're not allowed to institutionally persecute a whistleblower or. But it happens all the time. Right. Like administrative terrorism I believe is what Dylan Borland called it.
- [27:54]
B
Yeah, it's a great term. Yeah.
- [27:56]
A
Yeah. So Brown kind of concludes with this last thought that I really liked. He said these tools should be properly sequenced. First, release lawful witnesses and whistleblowers from relevant secrecy obligations. Second, grant immunity to those who provide truthful testimony and have not committed serious crimes. Finally, offer conditional amnesty where necessary to secure the cooperation required to dismantle the unconstitutional system recipients helped sustain.
- [28:32]
B
Beautiful. That's a clap worthy quote.
- [28:35]
A
Yeah, absolutely. And you know the. He talks about this more in the article but I wasn't able to pull the quote in. The other thing to be aware of is all of the discussions of amnesty that we're hearing are attached to a limited duration of time. So the idea is there is a window of amnesty for nine months or whatever. Like if you come forward during that time, you qualify and we will work with you under the assumption that you are a well intentioned whistleblower who wants things to change. If you don't come forward during this time and we later find out that you were part of the program that committed crimes, sorry there's no shelter for you anymore. You had your moment.
- [29:17]
B
Yeah, I think that's like a hard sell tactic. I don't think that's actually something we should do. I think that it should be an open discussion forever. Like yeah, if you have info about a murder that happened 20 years ago, I don't know, I still want to know about it.
- [29:38]
A
It's also worth considering that whistleblower laws are already on the books and predate any UFO discussions. You know, like that. That has been a long standing thing that whistleblowers deserve protections and should feel free to come forward and disclose things that have been done inappropriately without fear of it destroying their career or their livelihood or having threats to their personal safety.
- [30:05]
B
Yeah, I'm just still not even sure if that's actually something that can happen or that Congress can grant.
- [30:12]
A
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Okay. So yeah, like I said, Matthew Brown, great article. Very approachable, not full of esoteric stuff. Go read it. It's a really good layperson's understanding of like what do you need to know about the idea that we're offering amnesty to people who are part of a legacy program that has quality. Quite a rap sheet of crimes attributed to it.
- [30:37]
B
Yeah, yeah, totally.
- [30:39]
A
Okay, so you asked earlier about UFO files and yeah, the fourth batch of UFO files dropped.
- [30:47]
B
All right.
- [30:48]
A
Quoting the debrief, they said, as with previous releases, the new videos leave much to the imagination. In most cases, they show small blurry objects captured with multi sensor electro optical targeting capabilities from fighter aircraft or UAVs, and in some cases imaging systems on board civilian aircraft. In addition to the new imagery, several historical documents from as early as the 1940s were included with the release, the majority of which were previously made available in past releases by various US governmental agencies. This is something I was very confused by. If you go read the list of the files that were dropped, they're like, oh, they included the minutes from this meeting that Ruppelt held. And I'm like, that was in the last batch. Or they'll be like, oh, you know, this report from Project Sign was released. I'm like, that was also in the last batch. So I don't know if these are like slightly different or perhaps less censored versions, but they are apparently re releasing some files and on top of that, some of the files were already declassified and publicly available. So this is one of those things where if you're inclined to think that this whole UFO files thing is kind of a nothing burger and they're just doing it for non charitable reasons, this release ain't the one that's gonna convince you otherwise.
- [32:20]
B
Yeah. So you don't know whether the releases are the same between those two different. That would be really interesting to dig into and see like what, what actually changed. Yeah, but I, you know, I, I sort of feel like part of it is like Congress is asking for specific files and I feel like you're like, yeah, okay, we can, we can put that in this folder. It's already declassified, but yeah, sure, here.
- [32:52]
A
To be, to be fair, Congress is not asking for the declassified files. So we've got two things happening here. David, David Burleson. Eric Burleson, under David Grush's guidance, is requesting specific files by file name from federal research programs and the CIA. Like, he recently asked for any information about flights to and from Brazil during the time period of Virginia, following advice from James Fox. He's asked for Roswell files. I believe he's asked for, you know, UFO films. Like, he's definitely going after things that he knows exist because David Grush told him about that. Which is very interesting. The UFO file drops are not happening because Congress asked. They're happening because the President said to go do it. And what we are hearing pretty consistently across the board is they want to release more and more exciting stuff. But they are themselves a little hamstrung by declassification procedures. So they are apparently working behind the scenes to get more things declassified. And in the meantime they're feeling a lot of pressure to keep file drops coming. So they're like, here's some more stuff. One of the things that people were a little salty about this time is they included a report from Project Sign, which was one of the early UFO research projects. I can't remember if this report was public before or not, but either way we knew about it. And in that report they include a photo of. Oh, I should have written it down. I forgot the name of it. The Hayes Parabola, something like that starts with an H, but it's a German made like fixed wing aircraft that kind of looks like a boomerang. And the photo is not a convincing photo. This is a right brother style thing like wood and canvas. And they're basically just testing whether this parabola shaped fixed wing would work. And the photo is of it like propped up on blocks behind a, like warehouse or a garage. And it looks weird. It doesn't look like any aircraft you've ever seen. And it's in the UFO files. So a bunch of people are like, oh, the government thinks this is a ufo. Well, they don't. It says it directly in the report. If you read it, they are including a photo of it as an example of man made objects that could be confused with UFOs. Nobody is arguing the Hayes Parabola. That's not the right name. I'm.
- [35:39]
B
Whatever it is killing me.
- [35:40]
A
But anyway, nobody's arguing that this craft is non human. Yeah, even at the time they weren't arguing that. But the way that they picked that photo as the thumbnail for this report in the file drop is like, all right, like, and I, you know, as, as a former graphic designer, I sympathize for the need to find an interesting thumbnail for a document that is otherwise a bunch of typewritten pages. But you also got to be aware of how things are going to look to the public, you know.
- [36:10]
B
Yeah, yeah. That is a really funny idea though. Like, and what are we going to do for the thumbnail? Like there's literally only one photo in here and it's not an alien.
- [36:21]
A
Right. Continuing to quote from the debrief, they go over some of the more interesting parts of the release, it said one series of historical NASA images included with the new release originates from the 1996 STS 80 mission. The entry, NASA UAP D030, features photographs obtained by astronauts aboard the space shuttle Columbia at the time, which convey a small triangular or cone shaped object. The most common interpretation of these objects is that they were ice particles outgassed from the spacecraft, whose highly reflective surfaces could produce the optical effects captured in the space shuttle's cameras, especially in such low light conditions. Now, if you go look at this photo, it's genuinely weird. It's a photo of the curve of the Earth and there's a white triangle floating out there. It looks like it could be ufo. But astronauts who were on this mission were very clear that when we turned off the thrusters, ice would form on them and that ice would flake off and you would end up with these weird things. And we took photos of them to send to mission control as mechanical research. So they knew, like, oh, this is the kind of thing that flakes off a thruster when you put it in orbit.
- [37:49]
B
Yeah, because that was super important for the shuttles. They were constantly taking photos of any possible angle they could because they knew that the heat tiles on the bottom had a tendency to break and if they did, the shuttle was going to explode. And it did twice. But also another fun one. I don't know if I've said this on the show, but there's a great story about how beautiful it was when they flushed the toilets because the urine would spray out in these beautiful ice particles and catch rainbows everywhere. Everyone was really excited when someone was flushing, maybe. Oh, I don't know. Ice does weird stuff in space.
- [38:45]
A
It really does. There's also been repeated quotes from one of the astronauts who described seeing a weird snake like thing out there that he himself said is a probably like a strip of rubber that broke off of something. But things behave weird in zero G. And it would, it would wriggle out there like a snake. What caused it to do that? Who knows? But he's like, I saw it on multiple missions.
- [39:13]
B
Yeah, yeah. I mean, ice forming on a curved piece of pipe would do that. And when it's tumbling, it's going to look very odd.
- [39:22]
A
Yeah, absolutely. Now, but I do want to know. Coming back. Go ahead.
- [39:26]
B
I do want to know what NASA UAP D0001 through 029 are. Do we have those piles?
- [39:37]
A
I'm sure they're in there. Here's the problem. I haven't been talking about a lot of the NASA stuff because it's all like this. It's stuff that NASA has previously proposed a mundane explanation for. Now NASA themselves don't know, but they're confident. And NASA is very much an Occam's Razor organization. Right. Like if it could be explained by ice flaking off the engine, that's more likely than it's a UFO cruising by to say hello.
- [40:08]
B
You know it's a space snake.
- [40:11]
A
Yeah, exactly. So yeah, NASA stuff is weird. The one thing I will say is I don't know if you remember a few months back Lou Elizondo talking about, I think one of the first UAP file releases said wait till they get to the stuff from the space shuttle missions. That's really good. And now I wonder if this is what he was talking about. If so, I'm a little disappointed. Blue.
- [40:36]
B
Yeah. You know the thing about the space shuttle missions is there were a lot of them and every single time there were a lot of people up there and very often three, three or more of those people were completely new to space. And so I think there's a lot of, just a lot of photos from that area era and, and a lot of eyes just looking out. So it's not like the ISS where I think they probably genuinely get tired of seeing like looking out the window. It's like, yeah, this is cool, like I should do this more often but I've got stuff to do with space shuttle that's not the way
- [41:20]
A
they also on the iss, I know that the astronauts days are extremely rigidly scheduled. Like you're running like seven different experiments. You got to do your workout, you got to make meals. Like there's not a lot of free time on the iss.
- [41:37]
B
I think it was worse on the shovel because they were only up there for a week and they had to cram a year's worth of science into seven days. But yeah, still they found time.
- [41:47]
A
Yeah. So moving on from NASA, the debrief says several other examples in the release depict objects apparently engaging in flight at high speed speeds, such as an object appearing in Dow UAP PR1112 Eastern United States 2019 where the observer reportedly described the object in question as exhibiting flight characteristics unlike anything they had seen in 28 years for the US Air Force and US Navy. Now this is the kind of thing that I am intrigued by, even if the video and photos are unimpressive. Again, trained observers telling me this is weird excites me when I see weird photos from NASA and NASA as trained observer says, this is probably nothing, I'm inclined to listen to them. Similarly, When Navy and U.S. air Force pilots say this thing was weird, I'm inclined to believe them. They spend a lot of time in the air. They see what human tech looks like operating at performance speeds, at altitude. Like, when they think something is moving weird, they're probably right.
- [43:03]
B
Yeah. And especially someone who's been at it for 28 years. Like, that's a lot. Yeah, that's interesting.
- [43:11]
A
Another example, the Debrief highlighted the UAP in Dow UAP PR116, Atlantic Ocean, 2020. Include descriptions from the observer that note an object with a darker maroonish color approximately 12 to 15ft in height. Now, I'm gonna pause the quote here for a second. This photo has been everywhere. Chuck, I want you to click through on this one real fast because it looks weird.
- [43:41]
B
Okay, I'm excited.
- [43:44]
A
It's really, really strange. So the photo is this weird, kind of weird black, angular object that has, like, kind of knobs protruding out of it and stuff. I saw multiple people on Reddit try to produce a 3D render from the photo, which cracked me up because it is literally a black blob with a couple of white highlights. So, like, it is 100% interpretation. And they were like, oh, it's clearly this like, sci fi jet engine thing. Anyway, let me finish the quote describing it. Approximately 12 to 15ft in height that was traveling with the wind, did not maneuver or change direction, and appeared similar to a large, somewhat deformed balloon. Again, Occam's Razor. If it looks like a pack of deflated balloons and it drifts with the wind and it doesn't show any of the five characteristics, probably is Pam balloons.
- [44:42]
B
Yeah. Yeah, that's disappointing. I will say it did look a lot like one of the spaceships from EVE online.
- [44:49]
A
So, yeah, absolutely, it's a weird photo, but it's a weird photo that's probably of balloons. Now, if they had said, oh, it was a weird object that kind of looked like deflated balloons and it made a right angle turn at, you know, Mach 3. Okay, I'm interested.
- [45:05]
B
Yeah, we need some of your observables.
- [45:08]
A
That's right. Yeah.
- [45:09]
B
That's the shirt you're wearing today.
- [45:11]
A
That's right. CBS News highlighted another file. He said, one notable file from the Energy Department details an intrusion by an unknown object into the airspace over a nuclear weapons facility known as Pantex near Amarillo, Texas, in September of 2015. The document includes the account of two officers who chased the object as the nuclear facility was placed on lockdown. Although they were unable to catch up to the object, they stopped their vehicle and got out. Once outside, they noted the object did not make any sound. Furthermore, the officers stated that they were unable to identify any type of propulsion system on the object while using binoculars to assess it. After viewing it for one to two minutes, the object then continued north off site. Now, we don't know what the object is, right? Like, it doesn't describe whether it's an orb or a glossy silver sphere or whether it's a quadcopter drone, but long documented history of unidentified objects overflying nuclear facilities. 2015. This is a little early for big Chinese drones. It's possible there were drones in 2015, but definitely like this was before the really sharp commercial rise of cheap civilian drones.
- [46:43]
B
Right.
- [46:44]
A
Doesn't mean it wasn't Chinese or Russian. Also doesn't mean that it wasn't non human. But I just, I included this one because I like that the UFO files that are being dropped by the government are continuing the long standing correlation between unidentified objects and nuclear material.
- [47:05]
B
Yeah. Yeah. That is interesting.
- [47:09]
A
The debrief had another one, they said. In his statement on Friday, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the Dow and its agency partners are, quote, actively working on the next release of UAP files, which can be expected to appear on the Dow website in coming weeks. So apparently we're going to continue with this two to three week cadence and we'll get a fifth batch soon.
- [47:35]
B
Awesome. I mean, statements like that always confuse me. It's like we promised you weekly files and we're doing some.
- [47:44]
A
Okay, cool.
- [47:45]
B
Yeah, thanks. Thanks for the update. Good job, good spokesman.
- [47:50]
A
I appreciate that. They never said how many releases there would be. So I just like getting a heads up that, yes, we intend to release another batch of files, at least one more. Who knows when they stop at that point.
- [48:03]
B
That's fair. Good point.
- [48:05]
A
Now, you may be wondering, Scott, what do I make of these files? It's weird, right? They keep putting out the files and it continues to not really be much in it. Well, Harvard astrophysics physicist Avi Loeb was happy to provide an answer. He was interviewed and they asked him, what do you make of this latest batch of files? And Avi says there are a number of objects that look like real objects, but there's not enough information. One objective of the council that I'm leading. As a reminder, Avi Loeb was recently appointed to lead a UAP Science Advisory Council for the White House. One objective of the council that I'm leading that serves as an advisory council to the US Government is to suggest new instruments and new sensors that would allow us to collect new data in the future that will get to the bottom of it, figure out what the nature of these objects is. Because if these are technological objects, there are two possibilities. Now, I want to pause here for a moment. Avi Loeb, we used to talk about him a lot as the head of the Galileo project. And if you were to kind of boil the Galileo project down to one thing, it was the military is never going to tell us what we know, but the sky's open source, so we're just going to make our own telescopes and record our own UFOs. And he has, last I heard, built five observatories that are a collection of various types of instruments that are recording the sky full time. And his plan is to just pepper the globe with these, put them in hotspots and use AI to look for anomalies in them. That was kind of his whole thing before he got roped into this UAP Advisory Council. So, yeah, it makes me laugh that of course Avi's take is, well, we're going to tell the military to put out better sensors. I'm like, buddy, I don't think the problem is that the military doesn't have good sensors. I don't think, yeah, a lack of data is the military's problem. That's the public's problem.
- [50:12]
B
Right? Yeah. Like, I'm surprised didn't turn this into Galileo. Like, I mean, you've got a vehicle right there. It just needs funding. Yeah.
- [50:22]
A
Like, yeah, that might very well be. The outcome is he's like, you should fund the Galileo project. Who knows?
- [50:30]
B
And I do think that's true. And also maybe let them put some stuff outside nuclear facilities and the hotspots they want to be around.
- [50:38]
A
That would be a reasonable compromise between Galileo project and we're working with the government now. Maybe we could put them in places that we couldn't as a completely civilian organization. Yeah, I'm laughing. But to be clear, I support the Galileo project. I think it's a great idea. He's absolutely right. If the government isn't going to tell us, there's no reason we can't look for ourselves. But if you're now going to work with the government, Avi, press for the better data. You should be able to get access to it. You can ask Loeb continues. So he said, if these are technological objects, there are two possibilities. Either they were sent by adversarial nations, in which case they're a matter of national security. He doesn't mention a third possibility, which is they're ours and we're lying to ourselves about it. But, you know, fine. Either they were set by adversarial nations and they're a matter of national security, or this is the biggest discovery ever made in science that we're seeing technological artifacts that are of non human origin. So in both cases we have to figure it out. And the best way to do that is by getting better data. I would say at the moment there is no conclusive evidence. But the good news is that the best is yet to come. There is classified data that probably is much richer and more convincing. A high resolution image of one of these objects would be very revealing.
- [52:01]
B
Yeah, maybe. I know. I've told you the list.
- [52:06]
A
You get that high res photo of that clump of balloons. You tell me that wouldn't solve the issue for you.
- [52:12]
B
It would probably solve some issues. Yeah, but like it was already high res and it was as high res as it could be from three miles away traveling at Mach 2. Yeah. So I've told you my list of eponymous laws and Laura Vos law One is for any kind of complex system. When there's only two possibilities, it means the system is wrong. And I feel like this is the exact, exact same thing.
- [52:46]
A
Explain that one.
- [52:48]
B
Oh, there's always like. Extroverted versus introverted. Clearly that's wrong. There are so many different angles to it. Right. There are extroverts who don't get energy from social interactions, but are still pretty extra. Anyways, this is another example where it's like, well, either it's a matter of national security or it's aliens. I don't think that's.
- [53:15]
A
I don't think that's one of the only possibilities, Avi.
- [53:18]
B
Yeah, like, yeah, it doesn't take much thought to find like 16 others. And so I don't know.
- [53:27]
A
Did you know that I have an eponymous law? No.
- [53:30]
B
Tell me yours.
- [53:32]
A
Vande Hei's law of inverse Pizza quality. The quality of the pizza when it's hot is inversely proportional to the quality of the pizza when it's cold. You go get some gourmet shit, right? Like there's a couple like pizza places in Portland that are tip top. You eat that stuff hot, fresh from the oven, it is the best. Eat it cold the next day, it's real disappointing. Usually you go get some hot garbage, right? I'm talking Domino's, I'm talking Pizza Hut, you know, like Just your, your bottom of the barrel. Little Caesars. Right? You put that in the fridge overnight, eat it for breakfast the next morning. Revelatory.
- [54:18]
B
I feel like the next episode is gonna be, well, Scott passed away from, like, too much cold, fatty pizza. I don't know.
- [54:28]
A
I'm not allowed to eat pizza anymore. I'm, I'm on a low carb diet now. I. I eat a pizza from Costco that's a cauliflower base. It's fine.
- [54:39]
B
You're eating plants, though.
- [54:41]
A
I am eating plants. Technically, the entire pizza is a plant.
- [54:48]
B
All right, let's get back on track.
- [54:50]
A
So this is technically a new topic, but in the course of being interviewed about the fourth batch of files, okay. CBS News was interviewing Disclosure Foundation Executive Director Jordan Flowers, and they were asking him, what do you see in these file batches? That is interesting because to us, it's a lot of, like, blurry, unimpressive photos. Like, what gets you excited about this? And he said, what I think is really interesting is when you combine the releases and synthesize that with some of the comments that members of Congress are making about classified briefings that they're receiving, we end up reaching some astounding conclusions just based on information that's publicly available.
- [55:38]
B
I mean, you can jump to conclusions really easily when you don't have much info.
- [55:44]
A
Well, in this case, he's saying that we have more info than you might think. Right. We get a congressional comment over here, we get a file drop over here, we get a photo over here. And if you're not paying attention, you might not realize they're all referring to the same thing. Sure. So he continues, he says, for instance, the December 2025 incursion in the southwestern US over a sensitive military facility. The ODNI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, they were conducting a UAP luring operation. That operation was wildly successful. That operation has FLIR video and photographs of orbs that they encountered as part of the operation. That resulted in an FBI 302 interview. I had to go look that up. A 302 interview is the written record agents produce after interviewing a witness. So that is one of the documents in the file drops. So that operation resulted in an FBI interview as well as a personal statement from a senior intelligence official at the ODNI that precipitated a classified briefing to members of Congress like House Majority Leader Scalise, a member of the Gang of Eight, and Representatives Burchett and Burleson. This event was described as incontrovertible proof that there's real phenomena here as well as a core reason why transparency efforts have accelerated over the past few months.
- [57:12]
B
Okay, okay. So he's saying, like, if you're paying enough attention and you have enough string, you can kind of tie these things together and make a murder wall and, like, really find the truth.
- [57:27]
A
You are kind of poo pooing this. And I'm actually kind of into it.
- [57:32]
B
I am actually into it as well. I think it is interesting. And you've given some examples in the past like this, where it's like, now, you wouldn't know this, but there was this comment the week before. Yeah, I wouldn't have known that.
- [57:46]
A
It's true. And getting back to what I was saying earlier about conspiracy thinking, it's real easy to slip and slide from. These two things support each other, too. If you consult my conspiracy board with red string.
- [57:59]
B
Exactly. It's slippery slope.
- [58:02]
A
You're not wrong. Flowers concludes. He says, what's really interesting about that is that when you synthesize that information from the releases with Congressman Burleson's comments made in public and with the information provided, it was an operation that assumes not only that Arrow, the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office and the ODNI know that this is a real phenomena, but that they already have the technology and methods with a proven track record to lure and attract these things. So, yeah, we talked about this in, I think, batch three that it confirmed some information we got from batch two, which was about this, like, really interesting encounter out at a weapons range where, you know, ODNI personnel were on site, senior intelligence officials were on site, military personnel were on site. They all witnessed things. They recorded it in multiple way. There's multiple witnesses. They've got this document describing it. They've got FBI interviews that correlate that. They've got photos and videos in the release of the orbs that they saw in. Any individual piece of evidence is unimpressive, but it cumulatively describes this whole thing. And Flowers is connecting it back to a story that we heard from Representative Burleson, which is that the ODNI reached out to him after they conducted a successful UAP summoning, which we talked about. Like, this is the whole claim that Jake Barber and the Skywatch team makes that they have both both a technological and a psionic means to summon UAPs. And Burleson said, yeah, they were summoning UAPS for the purpose of researching and possibly capturing them. And it worked. And they gave me a briefing about it. And that has now become the hottest ticket in Town was how he described it. This is the security briefing that everyone wants. That was a few months ago. And then we got the information in drop two and three that confirmed it. And now we've got flowers going, drawing the line between all of them. So you're not wrong. It's a little red string theory, but it's well supported red string theory. And it partially explains why transparency efforts have really kicked into high gear lately. If this went from something. Now, I don't know what it's like in the halls of Congress, but I know what Representative Burchett and Anna Paulina Luna and those guys sound like when I hear them on the news. And let's just say if I was a member of Congress and Anna Paulina Luna or Tim Burchett tried to tell me pretty much anything, I'm not necessarily inclined to take it seriously. It happens to be that they are some of the most outspoken people in Congress talking about a topic that I care passionately about enough to start a fucking podcast on. But that doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't necessarily take them at face value if they're my work colleagues. Like, you're never gonna believe the shit I heard. Like, yeah, I bet. Okay. But when you're hearing that, it goes from being kind of the fringe of the House of Representatives to members of the Gang of Eight are getting this briefing and calling it eye opening that these briefings are leading to direct action being taken by Representative Burleson to request files that this pattern that we've heard way back, like Lou Elizondo described this, that when a tip kind of fell apart and he wasn't able to get through to the Sec def to make the argument he wanted, him and Jay Stratton came up with a strategy that Lou was going to leave government to make noise publicly and Stratton was going to stay inside to make noise on the inside, and they were going to kind of come at it from both sides as a flanking maneuver. And then Tom DeLonge got involved with to the Stars and Chris Mellon got involved. And then we got more and more public whistleblowers coming out, including our good, good boy, David Grush. Like, what I see is momentum building. And I know at times it can feel really frustrating. Like, oh, man, like we've been talking about this forever and like, we're still just getting the same blurry photos. But it's really hard to deny that there is a different vibe from the White House when they are actively dropping files, even if those files maybe aren't the most vis visually impressive every two to four weeks compared to a year ago, compared to five years ago, compared to 10 years ago. Things are picking up steam now. You know, I don't hold my breath on any of this stuff. All of this could evaporate tomorrow and it goes back in the bottle and we never hear anything more about it.
- [63:19]
B
Easy.
- [63:20]
A
But it's hard to deny the trajectory. It's hard to deny the pattern. And that is the part that I take hope from. Not any individual piece of evidence, but the vibe. The vibes are definitely swinging towards. Boy, it feels like there's something happening here. And it doesn't mean there is, but I sure hope there is.
- [63:46]
B
So speaking of things happening, we didn't get a speech. We didn't get the big disclosure speech on the 8th.
- [63:55]
A
I mean, I told you it wasn't going to happen, Marc. Christopher Lee, by the way, the guy who said, my sources have told me that President Trump has already written the UFO speech and he's going to give it. On July 8, he posted on Twitter that he was deeply disappointed that the Trump administration was going to leave the UFO topic. I feel for the guy. I think he was misled by someone. Like, he said he had a source who he thought was the space guy. Former owner of Skinwalker Ranch.
- [64:34]
B
I don't remember.
- [64:35]
A
Yeah, he said his source was Robert Bigelow, and then it turned out not to be. Well, I don't doubt that somebody was feeding him information and claiming to be Robert. Robert Bigelow. And we do hear about, like, media personalities being approached. Eric Weinstein told a story about being approached as maybe, you know, being fed information so that he could prepare the public for revelations that could easily be viewed as a disinformation effort. Was, was this poor guy targeted by someone who wanted to put garbage info out to muddy the waters? Maybe I feel bad for him. But also, like, you know, the lesson from Linda Moulton Howe onward is there are bad actors out there. Right. Richard Doty is the famous story about an active Air Force disinformation officer who's going out there and targeting the UFO community and giving them bad info and in one case, driving a guy to commit suicide. Like you. You have to take everything with a grain of salt in this industry. And that's why I love coming to you with stories about Louis Lizandre saying there's monuments on the moon. But that doesn't mean I'm like, yo, there are monuments on the moon. Yeah, you know?
- [65:50]
B
Yeah, no, no, because we, we just get to talk about it. Like, what would that look like? And how likely do we feel like that is? And I think that's fine. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I really want to make a pun about knitting. Like, yarn can be useful in both ways. Like, it can make murder boards, but it can also make hand warmers. I feel like we're making hand warmers right now.
- [66:15]
A
I love that analogy. Yeah. Now, new new merch opportunity for us, frankly.
- [66:22]
B
You find a manufacturer that'll make us handmade hand warmers with UFOs. Man, I would buy that.
- [66:28]
A
Could they put the duck cartoon on there?
- [66:31]
B
Yes, exactly.
- [66:33]
A
Yeah. Oh, my God. All right, everybody, thank you so much for joining us on. It's a very exciting time. Thank you to Chuck for joining us all the way from New Zealand and not just calling out sick for the week. That's what I would have done, frankly. I'm sure you got better things to do in New Zealand. The sun has even risen while we've been talking, right?
- [66:53]
B
Yeah. Yeah. It's wild.
- [66:56]
A
You can find show notes and more on our website, veryexcitingtime.com as well as links to our discord and social media accounts. Accounts.
- [67:04]
B
And if you'd like to support the show, please check out our patreon@patreon.com very excitingtime. Or grab some t shirts@veryexcitingtime.com merch. And if we ever figure out how to get hand warmers made, that's where it's going to be. That's right.
- [67:20]
A
Yeah. And, Chuck, as always, my wife thanks you for listening to me talk about UFOs so she doesn't have to.