UFO Disclosure or Disinformation? Grusch 3 Years On, Elizondo, Erdman & the NDAA

Summary

That UFO Podcast — Episode Summary

Episode Title: UFO Disclosure or Disinformation? Grusch 3 Years On, Elizondo, Erdman & the NDAA
Date: July 28, 2026
Host: Andy McGrillen
Guest/Co-host: Pavel (Secoactivo Podcast)

---

Overview

This episode offers a deep dive into the current state of UFO (UAP) disclosure, disinformation, and the political and cultural complexities surrounding the movement. Andy and Pavel reflect on three years after David Grusch’s bombshell testimony, the impact and limitations of government and congressional action (focusing especially on the NDAA and UAP Disclosure Act), the ongoing drama and divisions within the UFO community, and the challenges around evidence, whistleblower protections, and public expectations. The conversation touches on key personalities, recent developments, and the growing frustration among both researchers and the public.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. State of the UFO Discourse & Community Frustration

• Three Years After Grusch:

  • The anniversary of David Grusch’s 2023 testimony (revelations of “non-human biologics” and crash retrievals). Andy and Pavel mark it as the last truly seismic moment in the UFO field.
  • Despite the intrigue, little conclusive progress or “big moment” has followed, leading to widespread community impatience and in-fighting.
  • Andy: “Three years on from Grush, it does feel like we’re treading water.” (10:15)

• Community Meltdowns:

  • Noted escalation of “infighting,” sensationalism, and character attacks, especially among larger personality-driven channels.
  • Pavel: “Last Friday was at an all-time high of just infighting… a lot of desperation, impatience for getting the goods.” (6:08)
  • Hosts emphasize the importance of focusing on facts, history, and careful research, decrying drama and clickbait content.

• Changing Landscape:

  • Social media has greatly accelerated both expectation and disappointment. Previously, breakthroughs or new info were rare and anticipated; now fans expect constant revelations.

---

2. Evidence, Disclosure, and Political Developments

• NDAs and Whistleblower Protections

  • Recent statements (notably by Trump and Rep. Eric Burleson) about waiving NDAs for whistleblowers are dissected.
  • There remains skepticism about whether these waivers represent real protection, given risks of criminal exposure and lack of process clarity.
  • Andy: “On the surface... some sort of positive step forward. However, it’s far more nuanced than that.” (25:03)
  • Burleson’s optimism over Senate passage of the UAPDA is balanced with realpolitik—many hurdles remain (see segment on legislative process and filibusters, 31:22).

• Arrow and “Pursue” Pathways

  • Ongoing distrust in official channels like AARO (especially after the Kirkpatrick era), with whistleblowers still hesitant to come forward.
  • Pavel relays firsthand the deep skepticism and even fear among key sources, given ongoing “rotten apples” in intelligence leadership (28:53).
  • Improvements under John T. Kozlowski are noted but seen as potentially inadequate to erase past distrust.

• Matthew Brown’s ‘Catch and Kill’ Analysis

  • Summary of Brown’s concerns: government may “catch and kill” (collect, control, then bury) UAP evidence and testimony. (35:11)
  • Brown calls for guaranteed legal immunity, independent legal counsel for whistleblowers, and public release pathways.

---

3. Disinformation, Media Narratives, and Trust

• James Erdman’s CIA/UAP Investigation

  • Erdman asserts that while credible incidents exist, he was not shown evidence of extraterrestrial craft or life; much is counterintelligence and national security, not “aliens.” (48:52)
  • Warns of disinformation and grifting: “There’s a whole crap ton of disinformation out there and lies and there’s grift.” (50:12)
  • Both hosts highlight how easy it is—even for insiders—to be misled (with Andy referencing Ross Coulthart, and Pavel recounting personal experience with being manipulated).

• Vetting Information

  • Central tenet: Claims demand evidence. Hosts encourage multiple, independent sources before spreading any “inside” info.
  • Andy: “If folks have listened to or watched me for a long time, they’ll know…I’ll make up my own mind on it always with the expectation it could be wrong.” (54:55)
  • Pavel: “Anybody can be psyoped in this, in this area. It happens all the time.” (57:33)

---

4. Media, Sensationalism, and Accountability

• Content Creation & Responsibility

  • Discussion on the difference between responsible reporting and “gonzo,” sensationalist approaches.
  • Pavel: “People who do that type of content that is more sensational need to understand that’s the type of energy they’re putting out… Don’t expect for people who take it seriously to take you seriously.” (16:48)

• Corbell, Knapp, and the ‘Hidden Videos’ Debate

  • Addressing recent controversies over Jeremy Corbell’s statements about possessing, vetting, or potentially releasing “smoking gun” government UFO videos (see 61:34–77:03).
  • Hosts clarify: There are hints that more is seen privately, but no evidence Corbell/Knapp have true “smoking gun” footage in their possession.
  • “If you go out and start talking like that in a sort of warning people or threatening way, and you don’t eventually do what you said… people are gonna come after you.” —Pavel (66:21)
  • Both acknowledge Corbell and Knapp’s key role in bringing whistleblowers forward but urge clarity and less vagueness in public claims.

---

5. Big Picture: Where Are We, Really?

• Genuine Turning Point or Shell Game?

  • Listener question: “Does this moment feel like a genuine structural turning point … or a more modern, sophisticated version of the same institutional shell game?”
  • Andy is cautiously optimistic that the chaos may be creating opportunity for progress but acknowledges it could all be managed transparency and stalling. (91:52)
  • Pavel remains skeptical: “Seems a little optimistic, if I’m honest with you, but I hope you’re right.” (92:01)

• Disclosure Fatigue and Changing Expectations

  • The lack of significant new events (mass sightings, new evidence) versus a continual churn of testimony and “promises.”
  • The issue of ‘legacy programs’ and the need for new, concrete evidence/testimony to move the needle.

• Global/Non-US Sightings

  • Pavel: “In Brazil, there’s sightings going on all the time. I think that it’s still happening, it’s just not being covered.” (102:13)

• Social Media’s Role

  • Social platforms have shifted the discourse, amplifying drama and personal attacks, making it harder to sort signal from noise.
  • “Now everyone’s inner monologues are exposed.” —Andy (103:31)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Frustration & Expectation:

  • “People just want to see the goods. And I know this is a marathon, not a sprint … but people are gonna start losing more and more interest if [evidence] doesn’t happen…” —Pavel (6:08)

• Grusch Testimony Anniversary:

  • “So it’s just over three years now since that moment with David Grusch … Grusch stole the show with the commentary on biologics, on non-human craft.” —Andy (9:50)

• Disinformation & Trust:

  • “It’s kind of wild to me that he says with a straight face there’s lies and misinformation when he’s in the CIA, bro.” —Pavel (51:48)
  • “Anybody can be psyoped in this … It happens all the time.” —Pavel (57:33)

• Sensational Claims:

  • “Don’t expect for people who take it seriously to take you seriously.” —Pavel (16:48)
  • “At the lowest levels I think there are people who get so friendly with individuals they’ll say nothing against them … People jump into camps, don’t they?” —Andy (71:53)
  • “I’m happy to remain as independent as possible … allows you to be honest, at least to yourself.” —Andy (73:01)

• Legislative Hurdles:

  • “It still hasn’t passed in the Senate. We need to wait for that as well, and I get it—it’s a win considering the previous 2-3 years.” —Pavel (32:28)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Intro, context, and community overview: 02:10–09:12
• Grusch hearing anniversary & evidence discussion: 09:12–12:50
• Community drama, media, and sensationalism: 12:50–21:13
• Waiving NDAs, political/legal hurdles: 23:19–36:38
• Disinformation, Erdman’s investigation & CIA: 48:52–57:33
• Psyops, trust, and sources: 55:34–59:28
• Corbell, Knapp, & the “hidden videos” narrative: 61:34–80:09
• Genuine progress v. managed transparency debate: 87:28–94:03
• Nazca mummies, evidence fatigue: 96:41–99:47
• Mass sightings & changing evidence (Q&A): 101:56–104:13
• Filtering signal from noise: 106:29–108:12

---

Tone & Atmosphere

• Candid, slightly world-weary, skeptical but hopeful.
• Both hosts balance humor, personal anecdotes, and detailed analysis.
• Strong focus on cutting through hype and urging responsibility in research, content creation, and investigative journalism.

---

Conclusion & Takeaways

• The field is at a crossroads: legislative progress is possible, but skepticism and distrust—both internally and from the public—remain high.
• Sensationalism and community drama are harming credibility and progress, but tireless work by a handful of journalists, whistleblowers, and researchers continues to shape the narrative.
• Despite “waived NDAs” talk, true legal protection and a clear public process are still missing, leaving the pace and future of disclosure in limbo.
• Listeners are urged—by example—to vet information, keep expectations in check, and focus on substance over spectacle.

---

Further Content

• Next episode previews: Andy teases upcoming interviews with Jonathan Kaplan (on legal realities of disclosure) and Chris Ramsey.
• Pavel’s schedule: Interviews with Dr. John Blitch, Nathaniel Gillis, and possibly Thomas Jane.

---

This summary captures the full depth and complexity of the episode, providing a map for both new listeners and dedicated followers to understand the state-of-play in UFO disclosure debates as of July 2026.

Transcript

[Andy]

All new drinks are now at McDonald's with refreshers like the Strawberry Watermelon Refresher and the Mango Pineapple Refresher with Popping Boba. To crafted sodas like the Sprite Berry Blast with berry flavors and cold foam. Who knew ice cold drinks could be so fire six? All new drinks are here now at McDonald's. Refreshers contain caffeine.

[Pavel]

Evening Buyer's Remorse Buy a new car.

[Andy]

I'll be moving in.

[Pavel]

Let's get started.

[Andy]

Sorry, I think there's been a mistake. I bought it from Carvana.

[Pavel]

You what?

[Andy]

Yeah, great price. I even have seven days to love it or return it. So there's no, no, no buyer's remorse. More like buyers rejoice.

[Pavel]

I guess I'll let myself out.

[Andy]

Congratulations.

[Pavel]

I mean it.

[Andy]

Buyers rejoice. Buy your car today on Carvana. Limitations and exclusions may apply.

[Jonathan Kaplan]

See our 7 day return [e-mail] this episode sponsored by She's Byrdie. You know that little wave of relief when someone texts made it home safe? That's exactly the feeling She's Byrdie was designed for. The Birdie disc is a clip on personal safety light and alarm made for everyday moments where visibility and attention matter most. Night walks, early morning runs, parking garages, college campuses, dog walks, travel. It features bright flashing LED light modes, a built in flashlight and a 130 decibel siren that can quickly draw attention if something feels wrong. And because it's lightweight, rechargeable, TSA friendly and easy to clip onto jackets, bags, strollers, bikes or keychains, it actually fits into real life without being bulky or complicated. More than 4 million people already trust She'sbirdie for added peace of mind for the people you care most aboutdaughter, partner, friend, student or parent. This is one of those simple things that can make a real difference. Go to she'sbirdie.com again that's she'sbirdie.com foreign.

[Andy]

Hi everyone and welcome back to not only that UFO podcast but also a very special regular live stream we're now doing on a Monday. Pavel from secoactivo Podcast. How we doing today?

[Pavel]

What's up Andy? How was your weekend man? I'm doing very well, thank you.

[Andy]

How was my weekend? It was better than a lot of the weekends from folks on UFO X or social media because I I had a busy weekend and I think there's a lot to talk about in the UFO world off the back of that and we both have a lot of points to go over, but away with the Family. On Sunday, I traveled for football and back to Scotland. Took my kids with me. Really good. Had a couple of days off any work, and kind of went back online to be like, oh, my God, everyone's fighting, shouting and spitting at each other generally, and amongst all this UFO stuff. But before we get into that, how was Comic Con?

[Pavel]

Oh, brutal. Because I want to thank Alan Levine, first of all, for giving me the passes. He was the one who facilitated them for me and my wife. I did cosplay both days, but unfortunately, I did a border crossing too, and that took the majority of my day. So it was pretty frustrating to arrive at Comic Con a little late. I did go to the masquerade ball on Saturday, which was really fun. Never been to one of those. But, yeah, next year, I think I'm gonna try and plan it differently because I do need probably to rent an Airbnb and not have to cross the border. So if I go next year, that's what I think I'm gonna do to AV the disaster that was not arriving in time. On two days that I went, I went three days. But the first day I didn't, I came in too late. I just went to dinner. I did have dinner with Thomas Jane, though. That was really cool.

[Andy]

Oh, cool. Nice. I've never been to Comic Con. I would love to go. Obviously, contacting the desert is one I would like to go to next year as well, which may happen. A lot of potential there. But what were you cosplaying as?

[Pavel]

Luffy from One Piece?

[Andy]

Oh, yeah. I. The only thing I know about One Piece is there's an arcade near where I live. Yeah, they have, like, stuff in the windows of that.

[Pavel]

You know, I decided when I. Because I love anime, but my favorite type of anime is Shonen. But, I mean, that's over a thousand episodes that show One Piece. And I. For the longest time, I just refused to do it. But then I got married, and my wife was like, we're watching this. I was like, okay. And it's actually really amazing. So we're like, in episode 700 and something now.

[Andy]

So I may be a massive geek, but I don't really do anime outside of Pokemon. Back in the day, that was obviously not even a guilty pleasure. Everyone loved Pokemon people still.

[Pavel]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I love Pokemon too. So.

[Jonathan Kaplan]

Yeah.

[Andy]

Yeah. But a thousand episodes. You remind me of the UFO topic. Pavel, let's segue back in. It seems a little bit messy at the moment. How are you viewing the topic right now? Because it seems we're. We're we're getting towards the end of July, so we're well into the UFO summer. We are around a week and a bit away from David Grush, 60 to 90 days, timeline finishing. Some folks believe that the NDA being waived situation is what Grush was talking about. Others are saying that's not what he was talking about. We won't really know until David Grush, I suppose, comes forward and speaks on that. What's your take on just where things are right now? High level?

[Pavel]

I mean, I think we have to talk about both high level and low level too, because the community is important, you know, and I think that the community has been imploding for at least a couple of years. And last Friday was like a, at an all time high of just infighting and all that stuff. And I know that you don't like talking about it. We're not going to go through details or anything, but Friday was especially vitriolic and it was really sad to see, if I'm honest with you, because I think that there is a level of, you know, desperation, impatience for getting the goods. And there have been a lot of promises, a lot of, you know, warnings. They say things and it's okay to like believe people who are trained observers, who have credentials and all that stuff, but at the end of the day, they can make the claims, they can go on on record, they can testify in Congress with their hand up, but at the end of the day, people need to see evidence, people need to see what was talked about, but in reality, right, and even though there are a couple of interesting things that happen, for example, that December 2025 event that we already spoke about, that was in the files, that's interesting. I think that needs to be followed up. And there are more similar events happening that are not discussed in the files, but they are happening. I think we should for the most part focus on that. But if you are part of this world, of this ufology circus, in many cases you can see that there are many people that go out and say the wildest stuff and they don't back it up, they don't eventually show any proof of what they say. And I think that that frustration is already boiling up for the community and it's pretty evident that people just wanna see the goods. And I know, I know this is a marathon, not a sprint. I get it, that's the talking point that they all use. But people are gonna start losing more and more interest if doesn't happen, you know, and I don't think, I don't think Anything really that significant yet has happened. The burleson getting the NDAA at the UAPDA in the, in the bill, that was an important step. But the voting still needs to happen in December, right?

[Andy]

Yeah. Let me play a quick clip because this is. Let's, let's start here. Okay. And I wasn't planning on it, but we'll get into this bit first. It is three years and one day since this moment. Pavel, we have crashed craft stated earlier.

[Pavel]

Do we have the bodies of the

[Andy]

pilots who piloted this craft?

[Pavel]

As I've stated publicly Already in my

[James Erdman]

NewsNation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries.

[Eric Burleson]

Yeah.

[Andy]

Were they I guess human or non human biologics?

[James Erdman]

Non human.

[Pavel]

And that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program.

[Andy]

So it's just over three years now since that moment with David Grush. And I think that was probably the standout commentary from those hearings. And obviously shout out to Dave Fraver and Ryan Graves, who both attended the same hearing. Grush stole the show with the commentary on biologics, with the commentary on non human craft. You know, interdimensionality was mentioned and this is stuck for me.

[Eric Burleson]

It.

[Andy]

That was the last big moment in the topic. But I don't think that has to be detrimental to where we are now that there's been nothing like that since. And today in the Discord chat, there was a lot of the. The guys and girls in there were chatting around. Has a lot happened? Have things slowed down? Where are we at with the topic? And Gnosis in our Discord chat made this point that the. The thing is, following this topic has changed quite a bit. It's much more about the people and politics than actual UFO interactions. But the pace of the topic is so different to the past. If we're discussing things daily, and sometimes there is daily news, but when there isn't, it feels frustrating. I'd say there is a justified frustration with some of the things, but also our expectations have risen so much compared to the past. You might get one or two good books a year in the 90s, in the noughties, some exciting Art Bell or early podcast interview or forum posts, then you might be three or six months with nothing new. So if you're looking at milestones and not the daily churn, things aren't so bad. But three years on from Grush, it does feel like we're treading water. What's going on behind the scenes at the gatekeeping level must be fascinating. What's your take on that? I thought that was a really interesting point.

[Pavel]

I think that what people are the most frustrated about is that. And this is something that I'm frustrated about too, because let me just to give you an example, people like Grush and Gerb and Corbel, there's an entirely different story taking place behind the scenes than what is said in public. And when people, and when people get a whiff of that, they get pissed off because they're not being told what is actually happening. And I completely understand people's frustration with that because as you well said, it's been three years since those statements from David Grush and we get so much circular reporting even though there seems to be happening a lot of really wild stuff in the background. And I think that a good way, for example, to get people at ease with, with that frustration is to maybe share a little bit of what's going on in the background, that people involved in the topic have gone out of their way to keep it away from the public. I think that's a little bit unfair, if I'm honest with you. And that's where a lot of the frustration comes from.

[Andy]

Yeah, but then does it go down to individual expectations being an issue and what you expected and what I expect and then what? The thing is, we're making content, okay, so if nothing happens, I'll speak personally here. If there's no UFO news, that doesn't really impact what I do, what I say. I enjoy speaking to folks about past events, current events. I enjoy deep dives, interviews, going off into remote viewing, things like that. That's fine. And over six years of doing the podcast have always been those peaks and troughs. I do think there's an element, again, not to go into the detail, but we've seen a lot of over the last week where there are people who, who need the drama and the news and if it's not there, they really struggle. So for me, is that an indication of they don't have a genuine interest in the UFO topic, the history of what's going on and the bigger picture of are we going to get a disclosure or a confirmation from a government, from a scientific body, whatever it may be, a private entity of non human intelligence? Because that's what we're still here for, or that's what a lot of people are here for. So it seems there's a lot of folks want a lot of different things and I see some comments as well in the live chat. So hi to everyone in the live chats. On both channels, where there are big news channels and big personalities who cover this topic. And if they don't have something to say, then they still have to get something out. They're probably contracted to do that. I'm not contracted to make this podcast. I could do nothing for weeks and weeks and weeks, and the only person that impacts is me. There's no people to pay. So there you go. And I don't want to speak for you, but there you go, same situation, same, same. I think people also see this, and that's reflected in the comments, where there are some really sensational claims that come out because people don't maybe want to go through some of the more mundane or boring topics or things they consider boring in this topic. I had an interview with Peter Scaffish last week that has performed really well, but the reaction to it's been great because folks are like, this was a really interesting conversation. People were really nice about the questions I asked, but Peter was wonderful on it as well. And that's quite a back and forward slow burner of a conversation where you've got a thinker like Peter Scarfish who's going over his thoughts on non human biologics, non human intelligence, and I just look and go, are there some bigger, bigger shows and entities that don't like that sort of conversation? Because it's not sensational enough? It doesn't.

[Eric Burleson]

Yeah.

[Andy]

I mean, I would love every show to hit 200,000 views. Right. I've never had that before, but I would love that. But it doesn't happen for me. I'm. I'm content just making content that I enjoy doing, that I like doing, and I hope stimulates some people with the conversation. Conversely, my last interview I released was with Brad Olson on Antarctica. Really divisive because some of that conversation is really speculative. Some of it is really evidence light and relies on Fs, buts and maybes and very almost at times ancient aliens. Like, where one of the theories could be, it was a Fourth Reich and Nazis. Yeah. But it could also be this. Well, yeah, it could be, but that's not interesting to talk about. So there are plenty of different ways to have this conversation and present it. I just think at times there are folks within the community who that's not enough for. They want sensationalism, they want drama. And I look to the folks who have been in this topic who are older than us, who have done this a lot longer than we have, who just shake their heads at this and go, it's not the point. It's not the conversation and it's really easy to get pulled away from it and, and people's little infighting and narratives and agendas. I'll shut up now.

[Pavel]

You know, I, I don't, I don't want to be condescending when it comes to who creates what content. Everybody is within their rights to create whatever the they want. Yeah. I will give you a little bit of context into where I come from because I studied communication science and Iteso Guadalajara. I'm a dropout. But I did finish my thesis, which is weird, I just didn't graduate. My thesis was in radio and media analysis and I did two shows of on radio and we used a tool that is called the Observatory and my university. And it's essentially a tool where it's an algorithm that catches every single media outlet's output and then it goes to a database and every student of communication science can go through that and they will have to determine to which side of the political spectrum they lean if it is just news, if it is commentary, if it is opinion. So I studied that and I learned it and I've been, I've had that brain my entire career. So whenever I see an output, a political, a media outlet putting out information, I already have that sense of oh, this one is a little more sensationalistic than this one. This one is, you know, and for example, you are more on the sort of middle ground level headed type of content that you just want to talk about the topics and you don't want to get into other stuff that is not important for the topic. Everybody has their right to get their bag if they want to. But people who do that type of content that is more sensational need to understand that that's the type of energy that they're putting out. And they cannot expect a different type of energy or a different, different type of recognition or acknowledgement if that's the type of content that they create. It's just as simple as that. So whenever somebody from those types of channels or accounts are complaining that they're not being paid attention to by the other people that are trying to do the more serious work, that's why it's because it's not the same type of content. So it's very difficult. And you know, I understand, I, I think that reality television up our brains in general the entire world and that's the type of world that a lot of these people think exists. But, and, and I think that's about as far as I'm gonna go in our shared Stream. I am going to do a video that is way more detailed about some of these channels and about the type of philosophy that some of those have that, you know, I've seen insults, for example, against people like Chris Sharp, who is a journalist and has sources. And it's like they don't understand how journalism works. You know, like they complain, they go like, you don't have any sources. And it's like that is very disrespectful first of all, because you need to understand the type of journalism that exists, the type of content creation or if you want to call that journalism that those channels create, that is sort of like gonzo type of journalism, kind of. And yeah, the sensational types like TMC and all that stuff. And if you don't understand the difference, but more importantly, if you don't treat the topic with the respect that it, I think deserves, like you got to read the books, you gotta understand the history, you gotta understand each and every player, you gotta study, you gotta do your homework. If you don't do that and you just go out and like get clips, selectively edit them to put out an idea that you have about the topic, not the news or what is happening in the topic. Don't expect for people who take it seriously to take you seriously. That's just my point.

[Andy]

Yeah, no, no, I'm with you. And ultimately I've always tried to stick to. I just want to talk about UFOs, the topic, because that's what fascinates me. And it's the Scottish enemy where I can't be bothered with the drama. And I appreciate you, obviously you're going to do your own thing. Separately. I just, I've seen enough over the six years and people have been around us, UFO seen longer than me, especially on social media where people just want to make it about personalities and infighting and the topics, just not, not that for me.

[Pavel]

I mean it is that for a lot of people, but it's not for us, it's just. Yeah, and so I've gotten, you know, it's funny because whenever I put out my opinion on this specific topic, I get attacked by both sides, which for me is already a good sign. You know, it's like I'm okay with people from both sides being like, oh, Pavel's a idiot, he doesn't know what he's talking about. That's cool man, I don't mind.

[Andy]

Yeah, and listen, let's get to the UFO chat here then because like you say, it's all related. There's been so much infighting, but not just on a lower level. The point is higher levels, too, where you've got big personalities calling each other out, big personalities going back and forward on this. We've had people calling out Corbel. We've had people so many folks asked us to comment. And we'll get to it later on on comments that Lou Elizondo may have made because someone said Lou said George Knapp worked for him, for example. And we'll get to that. It's just it, it doesn't need to get to that level, but that's where we are. But I'm going to start off with Eric Burleson, who I think we were talking before we went live. Yeah, it's probably the main, the main guy right now in this conversation politically who's driving it forward. He really seems to have picked up the reins and he's come a long way and, and what is a short time to get the progress he has. And he's not really let this go, has he? And he kind of continues to drive the chat. Will we play the clip from the radio show?

[Pavel]

Let's do it.

[Andy]

Cool. So this is from the Mark Cox show and it's about a minute and a half long, folks.

[Eric Burleson]

There is quite a bit still out there. I'm still in the process. I'm working through the National Archives, getting document, getting audio files that we've identified. I'm still getting tips from other whistleblowers. In fact, President Trump issued a statement this week saying that if, that if you, if you have information there that related to this topic that he, that they will waive your non, non disclosure agreements.

[Andy]

Wow.

[Eric Burleson]

So if you have information and look, there are some employees, some things sites in St. Louis area that, that, that I've been hearing from whistleblowers that are locations where people have been working that may have information. So if you have information, come to my office, we'll walk you through the process of as a whistleblower and get your NDA waived and you can basically inform Congress of what's really going on. So that's the next step that we're taking.

[Pavel]

So now your framework, does that have to go to the Senate? What happens to that next?

[Eric Burleson]

Yeah, it goes over to the Senate. And the good news is that we've got several senators that are going to fight to keep it in. I've got Senator Rounds that will fight to keep it in. Senator Schumer, obviously. So I think we, we're in the best case. We're in the best chance that we've been in, in, in, in this process ever.

[James Erdman]

Good. Nice.

[Pavel]

All right, Congressman Burleson, listen, we appreciate your time as always.

[Andy]

Thank you.

[Pavel]

You're. You're muted.

[Andy]

I am muted. Not anymore. Thanks. One of the, the big things we spoke about last week was Trump's comments that the NDAs of whistleblowers were going to be waived. Now, that has sparked a lot of debate online. On the surface of it, for me, it was a good thing and it does look like some sort of progress. At least a barrier has been lifted. Because one thing that does frustrate folks is I can't say that because of an NDA. However, I get it. It's far more nuanced than that, that it doesn't negate any criminality being waived. It doesn't say that if Pavel comes forward to give information that if he then says something criminal as part of that NDA, maybe your organization had you do something that was fraudulent or illegal but was related to UAP activity, you then come forward and say that you could still be charged criminally for doing that. So it's, it's very nuanced. It's difficult. But on the surface, it looks like some sort of positive step forward. What folks weren't too happy with where the, the people had to go to Arrow or pursue. Burleson here seems to be indicating that to him. Yeah. What's your take on that?

[Pavel]

First time I hear about that. I would like to get a follow up to Burleson and just for him to clarify because there's been multiple times when he says something and people interpret it in a certain way and then he has to come out and correct what he said. So, so people understand what he meant. But I, I get it. Like, he gets excited. He gets like, for example, when he, Matt Laszlo approached him last week about the UAPDA stuff, he was like, high five. Because he's passionate about the topic, you know, but when you get that excited and you go on multiple shows constantly, there will come times when you probably say something that you might want to modify at a certain point because you didn't exactly mean that. And especially when it's taken out of context or it's interpreted differently.

[Andy]

Yeah, I'm, I'm a little bit stuck with the Arrow situation because we hear for a long time under the Kirkpatrick regime and afterwards it was really messy and difficult and it certainly seems like they were trying to trap whistleblowers. People were going there and there was even. Do you remember, was it Robert Salas and others. Where was that? Robert Salas recorded his conversation with Arrow and there was some kind of something came out online where he hadn't spoken to them, so he released the phone call to see he had spoken to them. And then that was the.

[Pavel]

The Washington Post, I think, right? Article, right?

[Andy]

Yeah, you might have been. Yeah. And it just didn't seem very straightforward that they could go share their story and that the information would even be acted on. So we then moved on, though, and have been for some time to Dr. John T. Kozlowski, who apparently has a much better reputation, is a lot more amenable to the topic, and folks have said a lot of good things about him. So folks are saying that Arrow on one hand is a good place potentially now for the topic to be held. But there are still others who are very much against Arrow.

[Pavel]

Matthew Brown, Dylan Borland.

[Andy]

Yeah. And I'm guessing these guys have had personal experiences where they're not willing to forgive and forget. Maybe what's happened to them, or maybe they've got good reason currently to still think that.

[Pavel]

The thing is that in that piece that Matthew wrote recently on his sub stack, he describes and shares a. A screen grab of an exchange with one of these people from odni. And that's the thing, though, that they know that some of these, let's call them rotten apples are still in there, and that's what makes them pause, you know, because. And one of them even has like, they were like, promoted recently, so they have more power, they have more pull. That doesn't give any of these people confidence. And I completely understand that. I think it's going to be very difficult for somebody like Kozlowski, regardless of how positive people talk about him, to get that reputation away from Arrow. Because, you know, I think our Patrick destroyed Arrow's reputation. And unfortunately, according to the information that I have, there is a lot of people there who were very excited and passionate about doing this and they absolutely loathe Kir Patrick and what he did.

[Andy]

Yeah, we seem to be past that. But it's up to the individuals, if we're still hearing from whistleblowers, that they're not willing to go to Arrow. Pursue is very much untested waters right now, isn't it? We don't know too much about what that looks like, but I do feel Burleson would be the type of person, given his relationship with Grush and others, that they could go to. But I think we need more follow up on that to know is that a case that they can completely circumnavigate arrow and pursue and just speak to Burleson. But then I think we also have to remember Eric Burleson is not a congressman for the UFO topic as much as he, he champions it and he does what he does. He will have other issues to work on and deal with as part of his day to day role. So it's a difficult one to just put all of this on him. So that, that definitely needs followed up. The other aspect of this was him saying that it's looking like he's obviously the, the bill, the UAP Disclosure act has passed Congress, but it still has to go through the Senate so there's still a vote to be had there. I think you said it's December, the vote, is that right, Pavel?

[Pavel]

Yeah, and, and you know, because they got it in the ndaa, but there still needs to be a voting every year it happens so we, we will know if it passes. And also it hasn't, it still hasn't passed in the Senate and I think that also needs to happen for it to be strong. It needs to happen both in the House and the Senate and it still hasn't passed in the Senate so we need to wait for that as well. And I get it, it's a win considering the previous two, three years that it didn't even reach the floor and it wasn't even discussed at all. I think it may have something also to do with certain senators that are indisposed right now that have in part according to Chris Sharp of obfuscation and blocking. I'm talking about Mitch McConnell. But, and I think that has something to do with this small victory for, for Burleson that Mitch wasn't there.

[Andy]

Yeah, it does sound to me though like, and from what Burleson said there he posted a few days ago on, on his ex, an AI video of him doing like a backflip somersault regarding the Disclosure act and support for it. I'm reading into it from those comments in that video that he feels he has the vocal support from senators already that he maybe is getting the feeling this is going to pass that next vote. Again, things can change word of mouth. And it's one thing to go to someone and ask have I got your support? Have I got your support? But he seems really optimistic that this could go through. I guess that's one of those again, time will tell.

[Pavel]

Yep, it will. And you know, I don't know. I'm obviously, as I told you, I'm condescending against Politicians all the time. I think the burleson is one of the rare ones and it's very weird to see a politician that is actually seems like an honest person. I try to be as diplomatic as I can with the others, but it's pretty, pretty hard for me. Hopefully it happens. Hopefully it is passed because I don't know if you saw the recent interview of Kirk McConnell on James Falk's Neon Galactic show. This was over the weekend and it was a very important conversation.

[Andy]

I think saw a clip, I didn't see the whole thing.

[Pavel]

And in, in this talk, Kirk reminds us that everything that has been done right now, the NDAs, all that stuff that is already written in law, nothing new really has happened. It was just an announcement from Trump. But you could, whistleblowers can already do that. Whistleblowers can already, according to law, go to Congress people and talk to them about classified information. That's not new. But if the UAPDA does pass, that would be new, that would be different. And that's what I think they are trying to do right now. So I don't have hopes for it to pass, but if it does, I'll be really surprised if I'm honest with you.

[Andy]

We touched on Matthew Brown and Matthew Brown has another substack article out where that's the platforms Matthew is using to share his thoughts on the UFO topic right now. I recommend folks go and subscribe. He posts pretty regular and his article is called Catch and Kill. How to Advance Disclosure Without Falling into Deep State Traps. Have you managed to read this yet, Pavel?

[Pavel]

Yes, I did. I did a full episode on it last week.

[Andy]

Yeah, yeah, okay. I've not caught that. I've checked out the, the article, some of the highlights. Then Trump's move could allow some UAP NDAs to be moved or waved through approved government channels. Matthew Brown says it's a positive step. But like you've just highlighted Pavel with the UAP Disclosure act, it's not the same as whistleblower protections. And I think again, we have to be very cognizant that it's easy for us to say, well, that's the NDAs can be waived now. They should all come forward and say what they know. Again, it's going to be private. But you then don't know who that information gets passed to, who hears those conversations and who is watching for Matthew or Dylan or Sans or Elizondo or anyone who may have information walking down a corridor to go into a room and closing the door behind them and then what the ramifications of doing that even are what these people are warned off, the threats that are passed by their way, the family intimidations that happen. So it's easy to say, well that's it, the floodgates can open now. It's still not that simple. And I, I even wonder with whistleblower protections, will those even be enough to protect the true whistleblowers that maybe have key information? I don't think so to come.

[Pavel]

I think so because as Kirk said, it's already written in law and nothing is, nothing has happened in terms of that. So the fact that Trump announce that they can, it doesn't mean that it's like something new. It doesn't mean that those retaliations are not still happening or they can't still happen. Eric Davis last week also mentioned that there needs to be specificities about the NDA waves because there's a lot of off books activity that is going on that is not even considered, it's not even talked about by people at the White House or anything. And that is what they are concerned about, the off books kind of activity, harassment, you know, doxing, all this stuff, intimidation, all this stuff. And it's something that I, something that I also think needs to be discussed is that I think that people like Grush and Louis are well aware that if this like deep state has, as they call it, is real, they know everything that these guys are doing, they, they spy on them constantly. So that also needs to be considered that it's, it's not like, I don't know, I think that a lot of these like threats are just like a scare tactic that they use to keep them on their toes all the time. And I think that Garage and Lou are well aware that that's just the M.O. because they're being treated like snitches essentially the day that they stop being treated like snitches, that's when real change is going to happen. Meanwhile, I think this is going to remain as is until some kind of law passes.

[Andy]

Bertie Blob making the point Surely people like put off like Catsky, etc can say more now. And I think that's the point we're trying to make here, that it depends what they know. And to Eric Davis's point, I don't think they're just being evasive because I think two, two of the big names last week when I mentioned now the NDAs are lifted. Who do folks want to hear from? A lot of folks said Likatsky, Elizondo and Davis. But again it depends what they know and locat ski certainly seems to me like the type of guy who is very much going to sit there and go, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm still not coming forward. This looks like some kind of trap, you know, famous Star wars meme. It's a trap, you know.

[Pavel]

Yep.

[Andy]

I know what I can say, I know how much I want to say and I know where I want to see it again. Maybe conversations are happening behind closed doors. Maybe not. David making the point there a name that will be more prevalent in the coming months. Ideally, I want Jay Stratton front and center. Jay Stratton's got a book coming out. He must be loving the timing of all of this. That's due out in the next couple of weeks, realistically, isn't it? So I don't know how far Jay Stratton's going to go with his book. What he can and can't say. I don't think this is going to affect that. By now it will be being published, won't it? Who would you want to come forward again? It's going to be private, not public. Pavel. But with this waving of NDAs, is there anyone you think you would love to hear people like Burleson and co speaking to? How put off?

[Pavel]

Yeah.

[Andy]

Why?

[Pavel]

Because I've kept hearing that he knows way more about the topic than he leads on. Let's see it. Let's prove it. Talk to Burleson. If I gauge Burleson's reaction on this, because if they do talk to him and he's like, whoa, there is something here. So that gives me more like amp to just keep going. And, and if he's not that impressed or he doesn't pursue anything, I think it would put people like Dr. Put off and others into question because maybe they don't really know more about the topic, but it's been touted so much, it's like, let's see it. Talk to them. You, you can talk now. So talk to them. Even if it's private, their reaction will tell us everything.

[Andy]

I think if folks want to hear more about legalities on this topic, just this morning I. I interviewed Jonathan Kaplan, who is a King's Council barrister. He's got a book out just now.

[Jonathan Kaplan]

Where is it?

[Eric Burleson]

There we go.

[Andy]

For those on YouTube, but not for disclosure.

[Pavel]

Disclosure?

[Andy]

Yeah. UFO is the world's best kept secret. He is a barrister. He's been into the UFO topic for more than 50 years. Just turning my little wooden figure around. The listener made me. And we went over legalities evidence, standards of evidence, what he believes we can talk about, what are the weak points of the UFO conversation? So I think that's a really interesting character Mr. Kaplan to have in this. That interview will be out in the next day or so, so people can check that out. But he's a really interesting guy and hopefully, if you've heard him speak on a few other shows, I've asked him a few different questions and went down a few different routes, maybe than you've heard from him already. But I definitely recommend that. I mean, I would recommend my own show, wouldn't I, Pavel? Matthew Brown also said within his article, his main concern is that witnesses may be sent back to Arrow the ODNI or other bodies connected to the system they are trying to expose. So again, coming out, giving information, it goes back to where they don't want it to go and they're going to do themselves more harm. And the article is titled Catch and Kill because the process could be collect the testimony, identify the witnesses, control the evidence, and body it or bury it, whatever your accent is. He said witnesses need, as you have discussed, written immunity, protection from retaliation, independent lawyers, and direct access to Congress. And he wants clear rules on what can be declassified, who controls the evidence and when it must be released. Waiving an NDA gives someone permission to speak. It doesn't guarantee them from this. They're protected, believed or heard. And I think that's really important as well.

[Pavel]

Yeah, I think so too. You know, for me, all the legality about it.

[Andy]

Say that again, Pavo, because you broke up for me there, so I'm guessing you broke up for everyone.

[Pavel]

Oh, I'm sorry. Can you hear me better now?

[Andy]

Yeah, I can hear you now. Yeah.

[Pavel]

Okay, cool. So when it comes to the whole legal aspect of this stuff, it gets really confusing for, I think the majority of us. This is why I like listening to people like, for example, this barrister that you just spoke about, Kaplan, and also Kirk, because they're well versed in the law. And whenever there is some kind of confusion or misrepresentation of what the law actually is, it is really nice to hear people like them who, you know, keep us grounded in it because, well, it becomes sort of like a broken telephone game when, like, people start talking about the protections that whistleblowers actually have. Right now, when this law was passed, which is, I think, 20, 22, the specifics of it, like, if Kirk hadn't told me this has been written in law for years, I would have. I would have thought, okay, so the the NDAs are now waived. That's a first. It's really not. Which is what surprised me by hearing Kirk McConnell say that. And it's like, that gives me the realization that if you're not well versed in the law and you don't read it, you can just talk out of your, out of your ass. And most people don't get it either, so they'll go along with it, which is disappointing.

[Andy]

And then there's the argument of you're Matthew Brown. You go into this room with someone from Arrow, someone from Pursue, and you sit down and say, okay, I've said this much so far. This is the portion of what I can say that was under my NDA. They share that information and at the end of it they go, okay, what happens now? And someone across the desk says, we'll be in touch. Where does that go? There's, there's, there's no further process we know of at the moment, and I don't think we would find that out publicly anyway. But this is where I would love to hear from Eric Burleson and others as to what then happens next. I think part of the issue is Trump can be very quick to, to come out and give a sweeping, you know, yeah, wave the NDAs, but then, is there a process? But what then happens behind that? Imagine I work, and I work in a call center here in the uk. I imagine you have those all over the world in different countries, you know, so you've got a floor of 300 people taking phone calls. From a customer service perspective, I can walk in as the boss of that floor and say, right everyone, you know what, Free pizza today and free drinks for the rest of the. Today's shift. Thanks for all your hard work. Everyone goes, yeah, awesome. Andy's amazing, brilliant. And then you're one of the, the lower level bosses, Pavel, and they go, right, who's getting the pizza? And you go, well, I don't know, where's the money for it? Well, if you spoke to the accounts team, the accounts team go, yeah, I don't have sign off for this. I know he said it, but I can't just go and buy the pizza. Okay, well who's got a card? Well, whose card are we using? All these little conversations then begin to happen and it's the end of the shift before anyone's even got things arranged. So it's easy to see at high level, let's do this. But then the actual action has to happen in the background. That's, that's the way I see this.

[Pavel]

That's bureaucracy for you.

[Andy]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And a whole lot of that is clearly going on. I think the big thing here is to boil it down for me, the NDA is being waived as a positive, but I think there needs to be more steps at least with whistleblower protections being attached that go far enough that people like Matthew Brown, Dylan Borland, the vanguard guys can come out as a group and say, yes, we are happy with this, this goes far enough. We are now going to go in the background and have these conversations. I can see folks asking when the next hearings are. I don't think this would even affect that. We don't know at this point anyway. But these NDAs being waived, I don't see having any impact on future hearings because they're still going to be discussing sensitive or classified information just in a behind closed door setting and skips. Yeah, yeah. I was going to move on to James Erdman's comments because that's probably kind of relevant when we're speaking about disinformation, disclosure, people thinking one thing but doing another. Should we move on to that, Pavel?

[Pavel]

Yeah, yeah, let's go.

[Andy]

So for folks who may not have seen this, James Erdman iii. I love that when people have got like, we don't really get that in the UK having like the second or the third or you know, I'm the

[Pavel]

third of my name too, but we don't use that. Okay, but I am, I am the third.

[Andy]

Yeah, more of a US thing. So he says he led an investigation for the ODNI into uap. And he said the investigation uncovered real national security incidents reported by credible pilots and submariners. But it did not leave him convinced the aliens recovered. The aliens recovered craft on a crash retrieval program had been proven. I'm going to play the clip now and we'll come back and discuss it. Will I play the full clip, Pavel? It's a couple of minutes long, then we'll come back. Yeah, yeah, here's James.

[James Erdman]

Actually that's the one I was. I'll say I was happiest with the outcome of that. I wish I could talk in more detail about what the findings were. It's up to the principal Deputy Director Aaron Lucas to make sure that information gets gets out to the public. But here's what I will say about it. Unless someone shows you firsthand evidence of an alien. Unless someone shows you firsthand evidence of an item that is being whatever it is, reverse engineered or unless people come forward and say here's the evidence that this is the crash retrieval program. You should maintain a healthy degree of skepticism. There are real national security incidents that have occurred from credible, they've been reported by credible people. And I tend to believe fighter pilots and submariners that have a lot on the line to come forward and say things. I tend to believe them. If they're coming forward and saying something, you should believe them. But the problem is those are national security threats. I think we should define them as national security threats, treat them as that, conduct the investigation, but be very cautious about what is being released publicly about UFOs.

[Andy]

Why cautious?

[James Erdman]

Because there's a whole crap ton of disinformation out there and lies and there's grift. We have to be very, very careful.

[Pavel]

Do you believe that there are more

[Andy]

UAP records that have yet to be released?

[James Erdman]

Of course. Of course. You know, given, and I'll say in CIA's defense on, on this issue, you know, we, we really didn't ask for a ton from them. There's a couple things we would have liked to have given, but that gotten from them. But I can't say that the resistance on that issue really, really was huge. From CIA on that issue, but certainly given the scope of our investigation, yes, for sure there's more work that can be done. What I appreciate about what we were tasked to do, we quickly discovered that given the personnel that we had, given the resources, and given what we discovered, just as we started the investigation, we had a counterintelligence issue that needed to be clearly defined so that anybody who picks up the baton going forward can focus on the real national security threats that have to be investigated.

[Andy]

Did you come away from the UAP investigation believing that there are communities, civilizations, life forms outside the earth?

[James Erdman]

No, not from the investigation. Personally, I, I, I want to believe that. I would like to believe that, but no, from the investigation, I did not come away believing that there are UFOs

[Andy]

thoughts.

[Pavel]

It's kind of wild to me that he, he says with a straight face there's lies and misinformation when he's in the CIA, bro.

[Andy]

So he does say some fair things, some, some reasonable comments as part of that, right? The, the fact that the UAP subject contains a significant amount of disinformation, lies and grift and that investigators identified what he describes as a counterintelligence problem. That is true. We see that quite a lot. Some of it is subjective. The whole grift thing we won't go into because that is what it is. But the counterintelligence thing, the disinformation and the lies. The problem with that is no one ever seems to believe they are the person being played or they are the person being lied to. I'll give you a sneak peek. I should have clipped this for you. I was speaking, I was speaking when I spoke to Jonathan Kaplan this morning. We got into a conversation about the whole Tic Tac situation. He believes those are genuinely non human. I brought up the fact that, you know, Ross Coulter and Bryce Zabel had their misunderstanding slash fallout slash parting ways off the back of Ross coming out and making a claim rather taking a bit of a 180. Ross Coulter came forward and please correct me if I'm wrong, Pavel here, he came out on that show a few months ago and said I've heard from a really good source the Tic Tac was Lockheed Martin technology and was not NHI Craft. Bryce on that show took, took umbrage to that, as we would say here in the UK and he asked Ross to well if you're not going to disclose your source, you can't just come out and say that. There's a lot of evidence to the contrary. Dave Fraver is adamant that the Craft was certainly nothing human. And this seems to be Ross is coming out and making a statement. Jonathan Kaplan I asked him what his thoughts were and he said I wonder if Ross today would still say the same thing. I believe Ross was being psyoped or played and I'm using Ross as an example of one of the bigger names on this topic who has high level sources and also has a lot of interesting information to present. So no one ever seems to be the person who wants to say maybe I was lied to. I've always personally took the approach to this topic and if folks have listened to or watched me for a long time, they'll know this. Many of your audience or people new or want that. I'll listen to a whole lot of different opinions and ideas and thoughts but I'll make up my own mind on it always with the expectation it could be wrong. Someone could have been given false information, someone could be lying to you. I get told probably far less than you and others. Pavel right. I don't ever play this game but I get told stuff sometimes that may or may not be true by people in confidence or either telling me it with a view to if you want to share this, just don't say my name. Often I don't share it because you can just end up looking foolish. I've heard a prediction of something's coming in the Coming weeks or months. And when it doesn't happen, well, you just have to go back and say, I'm just passing on the information. Sometimes you're better just to. For me, I like having context people's thoughts and opinions on various people, individuals, organizations, events. I tend to keep a lot of it to myself just to allow me to form my own opinion. What's your take on this whole then being psyoped or being lied to and folks who can't maybe turn around and say, maybe I was.

[Pavel]

I was psyoped

[Andy]

at Comic Con.

[Pavel]

No. Last year, I was led to believe that somebody was somebody who. They're not. And I was given concept messages about this person that they were like this information agent and all this stuff. And I didn't believe it. But there came a certain point where I was like, seeing this person's activity, and I was like, maybe. So I. I became distrustful of this person, and I. I have zero issues telling you I was signed up by somebody to make me believe something that wasn't true. Ultimately, I realized what was happening, and I'm not happy about it. I'm not proud about it. I'm fairly new at this stuff. You know, like, I didn't know what the mechanisms were, and I fell for it. So for me, the most important part of this is, for example, when that happens to you, that somebody reaches out to you and tells you this happened, if you want to share it, just don't share my name and all that stuff. If that happens to me now, I have to at least find a couple more different sources that are not related to this person, so I can feel comfortable talking about it. And that, for me, that's one of the few ways in which you can feel confident when you get information that is confidential, is private, but you can share it without naming anybody, which is what a lot of journalists do. They have, like, sources that they can't name.

[James Erdman]

They.

[Pavel]

They protect them. When people start, like, asking journalists to reveal their sources, that is very disrespectful in my opinion. You know, but, yeah, they. Anybody can be psyoped in this, in this area. It happens all the time. I think.

[Andy]

Yeah, I've seen plenty examples of it. And I think you see people who go off and want. Want to believe what they're being told. You've got people who really throw all their eggs behind one individual or one group or organization. And I think if. If you always expect to be let down, maybe it's not the best approach in life. But I think I go in with low expectations and see what happens off the back of it. Your situation, Pavel, because folks are asking, but I'm not going to disrespect you by burning sources. But what Was it a public individual already? Was it someone that would be well known?

[Pavel]

Yep. Yep.

[Andy]

And then what? Talk around it. Then what? What comes to pass generally that you find out the person's not. Not who you think, and then you have to kind of.

[Pavel]

Well, they are who I thought they were from the beginning. I was just led to believe that they were somebody different. And when I realized what was happening, I was like, okay, so this person wants me to just become enemies with this. With this person. And it was a little bit too late when I realized what was happening. Some damage had already been done. I did apologize to this person because I think it was an. It was unfair, you know, and. And, yeah, that's as far as I am comfortable going right now. But I will talk about this in more detail on my channel because it involves a lot of the drama and all this stuff, and I want to do it alone, just. Just on my own, you know?

[Andy]

Yeah, I'm gonna break that in my own behind my own paywall. And the next hour, folks, before Pavel breaks it on his. I'll be speculating and giving names. No, I don't know. But no, that's. That's fair enough. I totally appreciate that. The back to James Erdman. He does admit the investigation had limited personnel and resources. He didn't request everything available from the CIA, and substantially more work and records remain. Chris Sharp of Liberation Times, who you've mentioned, he posted online with that clip to say James Edmond was part of an investigation which was rocked by claims of whistleblower intimidation, false allegations, and efforts to discredit those who came forward regarding uap. So nothing ever seems that simple. And Chris does report on a lot of this stuff. He does have sources. People who say he doesn't is nonsense. But, yeah, I'll always present whatever's there for folks, and I think that's fair to bring up. James Edmond makes some interesting points. Others, like you say investigation, we found nothing. I would love to believe, but it's all nonsense.

[Eric Burleson]

He.

[Andy]

He speaks sometimes in absolutes, and I've got a big issue with folks who. It's definitely not aliens or this or that, but you've investigated so little as that classic analogy, folks, of scooping a glass of water out of the sea, looking at it and going, yep, no sharks. So definitely no sharks in this ocean.

[Eric Burleson]

You've.

[Andy]

You've Only done a bit of the work to, to do that.

[Pavel]

Yeah.

[Andy]

And I, I get the whole argument as well that you can never disprove there's no such thing as aliens. You, you know, it's, it's a bit difficult and I understand really skeptical folks who take that approach to say, well, it's easy to just all you're always going to have to say, they're out there somewhere. It's something else. But that's just the UFO topic in a nutshell for a lot of folks. Before I move on to the Corbell situation, Pavel, anything else on that?

[Pavel]

No, let's move on to that one because I think that's one of the topics that should be addressed.

[Andy]

Cool. So do you want to lead with this one? Because I'm leading with everything, Pavel, and I can let you do a lot about talking here because I know you're well versed on it and I believe it's your thumbnail too, on this.

[Pavel]

Yeah. So last Friday, there was a response from Jeremy Corbell to a really rude question. Somebody who called him names, insulted him, and he responded with an unfortunate response in an unfortunate way that drew a lot of really strong negativity against Corbel. And there was a lot of sensationalism with a lot of the stuff that happened. I was at Contact in the desert and I saw the presentations that Corbell gave with George Knapp. There was one where they had Chief Wiggins on and there was the other one where all three were there. Wiggins, Borland and Matthew Brown. And in that one, there was a moment when you can tell that. And this was at around the time also when Corbell went on Chris Ramsey's show Area 52, which also drew a lot of negative comments because he seemed a little bit on edge. I don't know if you agree there.

[Andy]

He did. Yeah. 100.

[Pavel]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I, I think that that was because he felt under pressure. I don't know if it was because he was being threatened, he was being with, I don't know. But in that Contact in the desert event, he did say, as in sort of like a threat that he would go to the desert and dig up, making it seem like he had the evidence, he had videos, he had something that could disrupt this entire thing. And Joe Murgia did use one of your clips from the interview that you did with Corbel to clarify that, that Corbell never said he had any evidence. I think that he has hinted that he does, and I think that he cannot say that he does, because presumably a lot of that remains classified. And if, if he's smart and he had it in his hands at a certain point, he doesn't want to have it anywhere near him after he saw it. So it makes sense that he probably hit it or left it somewhere secure where he's not implicated in anything. And I think that what he was doing there, he did, in my opinion, he did make it seem like if the Pentagon didn't release what he wanted to release, what he pointed them towards, he said that he would release it. And people got confused with the 46 videos that came out. Eventually. A lot of the videos that Corbell showed in his documentary did come out. They were, like, edited. They cut out certain points. The metadata were, was scraped. But he also talked about 15, I think, air Force videos that have not been released. And I think that those are the ones that he's the most interested in trying to release or get released. But, yeah, I don't think that he has them. I think that he was being purposely misleading with that because he doesn't want to get in trouble. And that makes a lot of sense. But he also needs to understand that if you go out and start talking like that in a sort of warning people or threatening way, and you don't eventually do what you said you were going to do, people are going to come after you. That's just the reality of it. And even if he doesn't have the evidence, he doesn't have the videos, he did allude to having them, and he did allude to releasing them if the Department of War didn't release what they had. And that's why people are angry about this. And I think it's a. A fair question to just ask him about that. You know, those, those words, those statements that he made was, was he under pressure? And that's why he wanted to, like, maybe grandstand little. So people thought that he wasn't afraid or something. He just needs to be honest about that entire thing, because he did say stuff that didn't happen, and he said that they were going to happen.

[Andy]

The, the big problem with a lot of folks who talk about this subject is when they're incredibly vague about things that should be pretty black or white. There's a lot of people who don't want to answer yes or no questions with a yes or a no. So, you know, Pavel, do you have access to videos that we have not seen publicly and perhaps are or were classified? Now, your answer should be yes or no. But what happens Sometimes in the community as folks will then say, you know, there are videos out there that people claim to have seen. And it goes on for minutes and minutes and minutes. And then before you know it, it's like, oh, well, are you alluding to this? And then the person comes back to say, I'm not saying I've seen them. I think part of the problem here is, and I don't know this for certain, as Corbell protecting himself and nap. I'm, I'm going to presume purely from a fanboy of the topic perspective that Corbell, Knapp, Coultart and others, James Fox and other folks, I'll just name big names. I always just assume they have seen videos that we have. Not that are likely or at least they are told or classified, but give them a context as to what they, what they need to go after, what else we're dealing with here. Now they say they haven't seen that. So you take their word for it or do you? I just think it makes sense. Like you say you would protect yourself if, if a CIA or an FBI guy, Pavel, came to you. You're at contact in the desert and someone pulled you in a side room and was like, pavel, I've got a video. This isn't public. I'm going to show you it. It's really sensitive though. You cannot tell anyone what you've seen. Are you saying you wouldn't want to see that?

[Pavel]

No, no. I'm a foreigner, dude.

[Andy]

Right? Take that out of the equation.

[Pavel]

They can with us, right?

[Andy]

You're an American. So you're an American and you are one of these high level UFO personalities.

[James Erdman]

What?

[Andy]

I don't want to say. What do they say?

[Pavel]

What do you mean?

[Andy]

What do you think they say to that question

[Pavel]

if I say no?

[Andy]

No, no. So if not you, then what do you think these big personalities say when they're offered the opportunity to see that video?

[Pavel]

That depends on how. Because you know, this is a phenomenon that happens a lot in ufology. There's a lot of self aggrandizing, there's a lot of virtue signaling they want to be the hero. They feel like they're on some kind of a sacred mission to get disclosure and all this. And that plays a lot into those moments that you're talking about. Whenever somebody approaches them with something really sensitive, they go like this is it. Instead of going like, is this classified? Do I get in trouble if I see it or if I get getting caught? No, they go like, this is disclosure, I gotta see it. And they become involved and you know, that's how soliciting works and you get in really deep and you know that, that I think that there needs to be less of this sort of self righteous kind of attitude that goes on in ufology there. And there's different types, right? There's a type that things are doing it for disclosure. There's a type that things, they're uncovering secrets and nobody's listening to them. They think they have the truth. There's, there's soul types of self righteous people that think they're doing the right thing but they don't have all the context. I think nobody really has all the context and they assume they do. And that's the problem. I think so. No, if they have this like idea that they are doing something meaningful, something that they're supposed to be doing because destiny dictated it, that's the wrong approach in my opinion. So if they say yes because they have that mindset, they're eventually going to get in trouble, you know, and burned that. It happened to Linda for example. It happened to Jaime Moan when he was in the 80s. He was getting a little bit too nosy with the stuff that he was researching in the US and people in the US didn't like that. So what did they do? They just started going at him and against him and planting stuff and sending disinfo agents and all this stuff and they destroyed his credibility. He doesn't have any credibility in the topic now because of that, because of this sensation of self righteousness that I have to be a part of this. And, and they get used to their egos being stroked constantly and they lose sight of, you know, just getting to what's going on, having a, an explanation that can get people to understand what's going on. That's for me, that's the only reason why people should actually do this. Not because I want to save the planet or you know, I want to make contact with Alien. I don't think it has to do with that.

[Eric Burleson]

Really.

[Andy]

Yeah. At the lowest levels I think there are people who get so friendly with individuals they'll say nothing against them. Even when they make mistakes or constantly make mistakes or perhaps to your point, start to look like someone they weren't. And there's the whole UFO celebrity thing comes into it as well. People jump into camps, don't they? That we've seen for years. And I think there is a lot of folks appreciate your saying and I'll take your word for it that you wouldn't want to see those videos I don't know in that situation what I would do until I'm presented with it. I would probably be honest.

[Pavel]

If it's classified, I don't want to see it. You know, if they say it's sensitive, I would ask, is it classified? Because if it is, I can get in trouble, and I don't want to get in trouble. And that's how people get in trouble. That's how people get burned. No way.

[Andy]

I just wonder with a lot of these folks, Pavel, how much of this secret stuff that they're showing in the background have you ever seen that eventually comes out that you look at it and go, wow, that was incredible. So far, none of it.

[Pavel]

None.

[Andy]

Like, I really liked the Chuck Clark footage when we eventually got to see. Wasn't quite on the level I was hoping for, but it was really good and I'm glad it's out there. But again, there are videos that are made out to be something they aren't. Yep. And I've. I've seen videos shared privately that are not interesting and are. And you. You are told. And this was years ago, you get told in chats. And I. This is why I removed myself from almost all of them. I was never particularly active anyway. Regardless of what people want to say, you get shown things and they're almost never particularly interesting, but the person tells you what you're seeing is really interesting. And some folks fall for that and really want it to be, oh, wow, isn't this. And it's like, no, it's not particularly good. Or that just looks like a dot in the sky. So, yeah, I'm happy to remain as independent as possible when it comes to this kind of stuff. And I think it lets you be honest, at least to yourself, and say, you know, regardless of. At the risk of upsetting someone.

[James Erdman]

That.

[Andy]

And I see people commenting, podcasters selling their soul, or people not wanting to upset guests. I don't want to upset anyone. I've never really said much positive about Steven Greer. I would love to host them for an honest conversation, though. But I think you get folks who just don't want to say, for example, with Corbell, I've had Jeremy on the podcast multiple times, and I felt he was really honest when I had him on. I said to him on that show, you know, the videos, the 46 videos that were released came from you and George? And he was like, no, that never happened. And I was. I feel I was honest enough to say, Jeremy, that was my impression. I never cut any of that out. And you See, his reaction is, when did I say that? And I'm like Jeremy, not only myself, but a lot of folks from your documentary and from comments you had made online were under the impression these videos were coming from you. He made the point. No, that's not the case. And some of the, some of the exact stuff Here is the 46 videos never came from himself or George directly. They were part of a wider list of files that they identified. Corbell said the U.S. government holds far more footage, but did not claim to possess hundreds of these videos. The hundred journalist point that was made was exaggerated. So this was one of the comments to Pavel, wasn't it? That Jeremy. And Jeremy and George, they go together now, don't they were going to. They had 100 journalists with all this information, almost like they had a secret pen drive. People thought that if something happened they would all release it. But that wasn't the case. He described it as an insurance or backup arrangement involving more than 100 podcasters and journalists. Unfortunately, folks, I am not one of them. I'm not in the cool crew and I'm happy to not be.

[Pavel]

Same as neither am I. And I'm happy to not be.

[Andy]

Yeah. The idea is that if Corbel or not were stopped for doing their work, information they had obtained or reported on could become accessible. And when directly asked if any of these journalists have the files caught, and I believe it was me that asked it, Corbell said, nobody has those files. So Right now, journalists 1 to 100 don't have access to it, but they could have if whatever fail safe happens. But again, when you're speaking in vagaries around it, the documentary Sleeping Dog at the end of it, the whole thing of going to the desert, digging stuff up, how much of that was for dramatic effect? How much of it was he'd buried files out there? Why would you bury it if they're not yours and they're not classified, that can give one particular idea. And I think it's fair to say some people run with that idea. I was under the impression he's got shit buried out in the desert. I don't think I would keep it there personally, but.

[Pavel]

And it's. And it's unfair to say that people who ran with that idea are stupid or wrong. No, because that's what it seemed like, you know, And I've seen a lot of reactions from people who are trying to protect Corbell from this. It's like they're, they're blaming people for not doing the research well or Something like that. It's like, dude, let's call a spade a spade. It seemed like Jeremy was teasing that he was going to release that. He showed the folders and everything on the, on the movie. If you, if you show that and you don't eventually, like, you know, actually show what was in those folders, people are gonna give you no matter what you do, because you did it for. If you did it for a dramatic effect and you weren't going to show anything in the first place, that's first of all. But if you do and eventually somebody gets to you and tells you shut the up, you can't keep talking about this. Maybe give a hint or something that that happened or something like that, but don't go out and, you know, be condescending. Even though the vitriol was horrible, I do not condone the way that Jeremy has been treated by a lot of people. But, you know, the frustration is very palpable. And I think that that, that response from Corbell was a mistake on his part. I generally do.

[Andy]

Yeah, I never saw the exact tweets because, like I say, I wasn't online much over the weekend and being away and stuff. But yeah, and the, one of the, the lines that people are really reading into, and I'm about to do it too and ask you your opinion, is around Jeremy and George having now released all the files that they have that they are satisfied and have vetted properly.

[Pavel]

That's part of the tweet.

[Andy]

Yeah. So that to me doesn't say they've released everything that just says they've released the portion they are happy to for whatever reason that may be. I'm guessing they have other stuff and their ranks too, that they just haven't vetted fully yet or however that may work. I don't know.

[Pavel]

This is a talking point that I kept hearing constantly when I tried asking about this, that people like Corbell, Nap gerb that if they wanted they could like do disclosure by themselves. That is also like something that if you hear it in the background you go like, if that's true and stuff keeps like stalling and nothing really happens and it doesn't move. Why are, why are they not doing it? Why are they not going rogue and just doing it like that? Because it keeps being said in the background and it's not like it's a secret or anything. Multiple people have heard this.

[Andy]

I don't believe any of these folks. And I'll say I am a fan of what Corbell and Nap do and have done. I also get the issues that people have, especially with Jeremy and his presentation at times. That's. That's all down to the individual. I want to. And Corbell says himself, praise and blame, it's all the same. He doesn't need anyone sticking up for him or backing him up. I don't think anyone. James Fox Corbela won't name all the names again on their own. Could bring about disclosure. I think people would love George Knapp to sit down and say, George, tell us everything. Give Pavel five hours of your time. Pavel, ask George everything he knows. And George sets and spells has got to you. I think he would probably tell you some really interesting things you hadn't heard before. But it would still be. Someone told me, someone really reliable, this scientist guy, they told me this and a lot of it is just them passing then on information. What can you do with it? It's not data, it's testimony. And I think that's what happens with a lot of this topic where a lot of these names that we rely on are well informed. They could be well informed, misinformed, disinformed, whatever it may be, but they are told a lot over years and years and years of working and like you were exposed to Pavel, maybe at times there was some disinformation going on. Maybe folks get lied to, but it's not even malicious. They're told a mistruth by mistake because someone truly believes that something is true. And all of this then goes into a melting pot. And I often wonder, Danny Sheehan is involved with so many individuals across the UFO or like the chart, the org chart of the UFO world. Okay. From Greer to Elizondo to all these other folks. How often is he told stuff from person A, person B, person C. But then a little bit of lore gets mixed in a story he hears, someone else comes in. You can't remember everything all of the time and that's how you form an opinion. And then when does that bleed into truth and speculation? And I'm. I just feel that's just being human. And that's kind of where I'm at with a lot of the UFO topic. I don't think regardless what you feel about how they handle the work, the files Watch released what's not released. Corbell and Knapp are heavily involved with bringing a lot of these whistleblowers forward to Congress. So regardless of what you think about documentaries, podcasts, Borland Brown, all of these folks came forward through Jeremy and George and they are working closely with the congress. Folks, so they are ingrained and where we are right now, for good or for bad. I personally am glad they're there, but. Yeah, I don't know what your take on that is.

[Pavel]

Yeah, I mean, 80 of what's happened over the last five years has been because of them, because of their work. It's as simple as that. And I, I do appreciate them for that. It's just like the messaging is not ideal when it comes to that, specifically from Corbell, I think. And I don't know if it has to do with him being on edge constantly or trying to stay safe, stay out of jail. That's. Those are all fair points. But yeah, I, I also get people's frustrations with them. Honestly, I, I do.

[Andy]

Yeah. I'll never stick up for someone who doesn't require it. And, you know, everyone's in this. As soon as you put yourself out there publicly, you. You open yourself up to any and all feedback, constructive or otherwise, and you're going to hear things that you don't want to. Don't want to bang about on about that too much. I've got some listener questions to get to that may or may not cover a few things.

[Pavel]

Let's go.

[Andy]

David was the first one. And David wants to know our thoughts on this particular video that was released from the White House. Now, I'm not going to play the audio, but I am going to tell folks what the audio is because if I play it, I'll probably get a hit on copyright strike. So over the weekend, the White House released this video, which I will play now. And for those on audio, it's the Rick and Morty intro, but it's basically got Trump, Vance, Ace, arresting aliens, the White House, and it's got the Rick and Morty tune over the top of it, hence I'm not playing it. It's a pretty cool little visual, but a lot of folks, Pavel, haven't been happy with the White House Twitter account making memes and jokes about the UFO or UAP topic. I am not personally offended by this one. And at the end, instead of Rick and Morty, it comes up maga. Okay, it doesn't fuss me. It's very well done because graphically it looks phenomenal. If you like Rick and Morty like I do. But yeah, I wasn't too fussed on this. But I get. There have been a lot of times in this subject it seems that our staffers or apprentices or whoever is in charge of the White House social account, who at times are very off the Pulse with what? The public or not the public. I can't really speak for the public, but what the UFO community think about the subject and topic didn't offend me. But, yeah, it is what it is.

[Pavel]

Yeah. Well, I am of the opinion that if aliens don't have a sense of humor, I don't want to meet them. So whenever, you know, there's this, oh, you need to take it very seriously. It's like you can't laugh at all. Like, at all. That's boring. I don't want to be a part of any of that. So, you know, even though I know that there's a lot of animosity towards the Trump administration because of everything that's being done in the outside, this is just some harmless AI slop shit that people can laugh at, I think. And it doesn't do anything really. I do find it interesting that Trump seems to be a little more on the, you know, playing into all the conversations surrounding his disclosure effort. What, if you want to call it that, he's posted a couple of pictures of, like, sort of like a spoofing Star Trek about nuclear energy. It's like any. And. And Burchett was recently on Askapol saying that the Deep State is actually blocking Trump on disclosure and that he's really engaged in it. And I find that really interesting because months ago, pretty much everybody agreed that Trump wasn't interested, that he. And he kept saying that he's not into that and like that, you know. But now there seems to be a different type of activity with Trump when it comes to this topic. I don't know how to take it, if I'm honest with you.

[Andy]

I'll give you my answer to that in a second. Let me read this question out first, though, so from Human Neutrino. With the House recently adopting Burleson's UEP Disclosure act amendment, we are seeing a renewed push to target private aerospace contractors and establish an independent review board with subpoena authority. Looking at the recent Department of War file release alongside legislative NDAA provisions, do you feel we are witnessing genuine substantive progress, or is the government simply shifting towards a model of managed transparency, releasing historical records while keeping the core secrets classified? And from where you both sit, does this moment feel like a genuine structural turning point for the UAP topic, or are we just watching a more modern, sophisticated version of the same institutional shell game? So, to answer your question and follow up on what you said before, I don't see any sign that Trump is more interested in this topic than he ever was before. I always feel it's something Donald Trump has went, huh? And shrugged his shoulders at. I think if Trump was literally given the video with the document that showed the smoking gun proof, he would go and move on about his day. I just. I just get that feeling.

[Pavel]

He wouldn't care. Yeah, that's fair.

[Andy]

Even just like, maybe he does care, but just like, okay, what do you want me to do about it? You know, it reminds me. This is a. I think this is a great analogy, Right. And I love analogies. I went to New York in 2004, and I stayed across the road diagonally from Madison Square Garden. I was going to see WrestleMania 20 as a young kid, right. With my friend. So we were in a really nice hotel because his dad booked the hotel for us and he wanted us to stay central in Manhattan, close to Madison Square Garden. I'd never been to New York before. At the same time that night we got there, it was really busy because there were college basketball playoffs happening in msg for anyone outside of the US College basketball in the US Is massive. So I have no clue about it. Had no idea who was there, the teams the game was even on. We got into an elevator with what appeared to be a couple of those players. Their security made this motion of, like, keeping us separate and standing between us. I had no clue who these guys were, and I couldn't have cared less at the time. It could have been LeBron James for all I know, right? 2004. I don't know. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Whoever was playing in MSG, middle of March 2004. But I. It's not that I didn't care. I was just like, oh, a couple of young basketball players, and then stood talking to my friend. But for other people, that might have been a huge moment in their life to have been in that elevator with those guys proper fanboying out, you know, I'll sign my shirt. Oh, my God, I'm so happy to meet. Let me take a selfie. I didn't care. Does it make it less of a big deal? No, but to me, it meant nothing. So I had these security guys protecting these basketball players. I mean, they were like, twice the size of me, but, you know, and it was just, we were in two different worlds, and that's the way I feel. Trump is detached from the UFO topic. Now, to answer the question from human neutrino, are we in a place where that detachment is potentially a good thing, where you've almost got the parent of the household or the boss. Let's use the boss analogy again. The big boss going, I'm not too fussed on this. I'm usually the guy who knocks us back one way or another. And now you've got the subservient folks below who are fighting to keep it secret, but you've now got more permission as the ones trying to pull this forward slowly. So guys like Burleson, Grush, Elizondo, any of the guys who are fighting for disclosure or appear to be, have more opportunity to do that. And I think we may be in a phase like that where in chaos, there's a bit of opportunity.

[Pavel]

Yeah.

[Andy]

And maybe, maybe the chaos that we're seeing is a good thing for potential progress and disclosure. I don't know. Like, does that make sense, man?

[Pavel]

I hope. I hope you're right. Seems a little optimistic, if I'm honest with you, but I hope you're right.

[Andy]

It's rare for me to be optimistic.

[Pavel]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's. That's. I was like, holy, Andy.

[James Erdman]

What.

[Pavel]

What's. What did you have for breakfast, man? So, for me, it's more a matter of. Because, you know, you can hear people like Peter Scafish talking about how positive everything is in the background and all that stuff, but also you have something that. Few people talk about this, but I don't think that Trump doesn't have interest simply because of the fact that Trump has always tried to look for the power move on everything that he does. Right. So if. If he has an indication or was already shown some type of evidence that this is real and that there is some kind of technology that is being kept from the public, I think that if he's convinced that it's real, he's going to try and get it and try to get something out of it or monetize it or. Because that's just Trump. That's the way he operates. Right. The problem that I see is that there are other players that are not within the aerospace companies that may also already know that there is technology. And these players are very powerful people, newly powerful people. And that is something that is not really that discussed. Like, what if Trump knows and what if he. He's already working towards getting this and getting advantage of this? That is absolutely possible as well. And it's not being discussed as much.

[Andy]

See, as a parent, I often will have. I've got kids who are 5, 8 and 10. I will have them ask me something when I'm busy doing something else and I'm only half listening and paying attention and I will often agree to stuff that I've not realized what I've agreed to until much later in the day, until it's too late. I can't see. I could see a situation where. With Trump and with Iran and with all the stuff going on in the US and the rest of the world. This is one of those things of. Dad, dad, what about this? Yeah, yeah, just, yeah, whatever.

[James Erdman]

Just.

[Andy]

Can you deal with it? Yeah, cool. Or you, you ask an older kid. Yeah, can you step in and deal with that? Is that okay? Yeah, just. I'm trying to concentrate on this. Over. Sounds good. Go for it. And then later on I'm like, why, why are you doing that? Oh, you said it was okay. Did I? I don't remember that. My memory's shocking as well. I've always said this, so I could totally see that sort of situation where there was. There was famously a journalist in the UK got sacked from a job. That was it on 911 where they were a news editor or something like that, or a reporter and they, they used the phrase it's a good day to bury bad news. I don't know if you ever heard about this.

[Pavel]

No.

[Andy]

Where they basically use the events of 911 of. Do you know what? If you've got any really shitty stories like as a council or a government or stuff to get out, today would be a fantastic day to release a public statement because who is going to care when you've got this going on in the us, that council tax is going up or, you know, so you get the, the, the feeling behind it, with everything going on, is there an element of. How can people take advantage of a situation to further their own agenda and get information out? And I just wonder maybe that's an element of this. But yeah, that journalist gets sacked by the way, for the good. Databury bad news.

[Pavel]

Good. That was disgusting.

[Andy]

I mean, to be fair on that, I'm not going to go into it, but we did see a World Trade Center 7 collapse under absolutely no strainer pressure whatsoever. So someone certainly buried some bad news that day of the entire world. But we'll go into World Trade center stuff another day. But yeah, here's one that's right up your street, Pavel. Although I don't know how much still these days. Mark wanted to know why do you think the NAZCA mummy topic has gone so quiet? Keeping in mind the DNA tests have still not been determined after nearly three years. How close are you still to this?

[Pavel]

I just got tired of waiting, man. And it's the same Thing as with the UFOs, they say, oh, we got, we're working on the DNA. And I already know the name of a couple of universities that are in the US that allegedly are alleged running DNA tests. But you know, I've been, I, I could mention it if I wanted to, but people that I care about are like, no, that would kill the entire investigation. It's like, dude, it's been three years. You haven't really shown anything that substantial. There's been a couple of debunks that are very convincing for a lot of people. And you still want to keep this a secret and not tell people which universities are involved in the DNA testing. Which are, I believe, universities in the U.S. andy. And, and for some reason you can't really say because they don't want to be burned or. I don't know, It's. I just dipped out, man. It's. It's way, it's way too much stuff to. And drama around it. It's like, go nuts. I don't care.

[Andy]

Yeah, same. Same for me with it. Pavel. Where there's, there's an interesting what if there or, oh, this could be cool, but it just doesn't, Excuse me. It just doesn't seem to go anywhere. And I feel enough times past where this is also the issue with the Nazca mummy stuff. I'm not a scientist, so whether you present to me a debunk or a paper that explains why the DNA of this be. And I'm like, I. That doesn't mean anything to me. I need other folks who I respect or acknowledge or I find credible to get involved and tell me why this is interesting and easy to explain way. And until that happens, I'm sort of just outside on the periphery. I look at now and again and go, oh, what's going on? But how much more of the story is there? That's that for me. It's. It's much like if we get another set of hearings with the same types of people. I've said this before, telling the same testimony. Interesting, but how much more can we hear of that? We, we need, we need folks who have worked on legacy programs. You know, we need more information. We need new types of testimony for it to move the needle. And I don't feel with the NASCAR mummies, the needle moved for a very long time.

[Pavel]

Nope, it didn't. And people can keep thinking that it does, but to me it's just another case with questionable evidence. Questionable people. Interesting though. Yeah, but there's just a lot of a Cloud of a stormy cloud surrounding it constantly. And it's like, no, something's wrong with this little.

[Andy]

Melly asked, have you seen the video from Project Unity about the document he found which reveals the Legacy program and ties to Marilyn Monroe? The answer to that is no, I have not.

[Pavel]

Nope, me neither. Next question.

[Andy]

I was going to say I literally can't add anything more to that little melee. Get in touch if you've. If you've seen that or if anyone's got comments in the chat, but yeah, we've not seen it, so can't say much. Carl asks a question and this lightens the mood a little bit. Pavel, what do NHI do on their days off?

[Pavel]

I hope that they are doing constant fart jokes

[Andy]

so that there's an intro. God, this could get really philosophical and deep, but it's too late for that. You know, as we battle towards the end of the show and I really need to pee. There's an assumption there that NHI have days off. And if you're talking about whatever's interacting with us, would it not be sensible that perhaps if they are robotic or clones, they don't have to have days off and they constantly work like does. Does Chat GPT take a day off? No, it just keeps going. So, yeah, I don't know. I think Carl will keep stuff like that for another show, for bigger questions, because I love the whole. Do they have factories? The do the NHI who visit us, are they just the astronauts of another civilization? Are they the top not point not. Not 1%. Are we visited by an entire civilization? Maybe one that died off? Krypton esque. But yeah, big questions for another day. Yep, Pavel goes with a fart joke. So you got deep on that one. Here's an interesting question. Michael says, although plenty of UAP reports still come in often orbs these days, when was the last time we had something like a Phoenix lights or aerial school incident? Have the NHI become more bashful in recent years or has a particular phase of their relationship with us being complete?

[Eric Burleson]

Hmm.

[Pavel]

Can you repeat the question again?

[Andy]

So the idea that things have slowed down, when was the last time we had a mass sighting? Is it that they've got more shy or is that particular phase of their relationship with us complete?

[Pavel]

Nope. In Brazil, there's sightings going on all the time. I think that it's still happening, it's just not being covered. That's it. But it's still happening. Every day you see a new UFO video that is grainy. Yeah, but there's People seeing stuff in the sky, all around the world, all the time, every day.

[Andy]

Social media changed the conversation too, because

[Pavel]

you no longer AI an AI.

[James Erdman]

Yeah.

[Andy]

And AI is a huge. I now have my five year old, five years old, who watches a lot of YouTube shorts and I've had to explain to him when it says the little AI badge that comes up, that means the video is not real. Not that everything you watch on YouTube shorts are real anyway. You can tell if something's like CGI or graphics or whatever. But he then sat. He's a bit autistic. He then sat clicking through videos really quickly going, AI, AI, not AI, not AI. And I'm like, yeah, but watch the video, Harry. But I just want them to be able to recognize what is and isn't real. And I think social media just gave. And it's probably. I see this as someone using the power of social media to do what I do. Same as yourself, Pavel. Right. This is going out on YouTube and stuff.

[Pavel]

Yes.

[Andy]

It gave everyone a voice and a platform. And that ultimately for society, I think, has been quite a bad thing right now anyway. We've not quite harnessed how to use this for the betterment of society yet because now everyone's inner monologues are exposed. I don't think society is necessarily more awful than it ever has been, but I just think that people that you never had to listen to before, other than down the pub when they were a bit drunk, you now get everyone's inner monologue just spewed out on a screen. Because I saw. Where was it? Was it, was it. Mike Tyson was like, everyone's a keyboard warrior till they get punched in the face.

[James Erdman]

Yeah.

[Andy]

And it's like, it's true. It's like now growing up, not enough people say something and have a consequence. When you were a kid, Pavel, how many times you get punched in the face? I get punched a couple of times as a kid. One of them was for a bad tackle playing football, which was very unfair and sticks with me. I was quite a good boy as a kid though. Right. But you would say the wrong thing to the wrong person and you got a burst lip. Where I grew up and you learned from that. Now you sit behind a screen telling someone in a different continent what you think of them with an avatar and a pseudonym.

[Pavel]

Yep.

[Andy]

And you see what you like and you spew. I'm not saying we do it, but people will spew racist, homophobic, xenophobic, whatever. It might pick your phobic. They will say all this stuff just Horrible. Horrible. Two footballers too. Here's, here's one for you. But she just showed you where social media is at. Two footballers signed for my football team from a different team arrival team. They were being interviewed today at an open training session talking about how happy they were to be here. One of the comments and I showed my 10 year old was I hope they get cancer because they signed for a different football team. Imagine saying that in public. Would that guy say that in public? No, he would.

[Pavel]

I mean bro, there's UFO personalities who say the foulest.

[Andy]

Yeah.

[Pavel]

Constantly. That's all they do all day. And it's their brand of sorts and you know, more power to them. But don't expect different energy when you're giving out that type of energy all the time. Yeah, right.

[Andy]

So it comes back.

[Pavel]

Yeah, yeah.

[Andy]

I, I just think we're in a, a strange phase where social media has, has kind of skewed all of that stuff because you used to have. It was so difficult for a story to become lore or if someone came out now and shared a story similar to Calvin Parker Pascagoula, you know, or Travis Walton or Whitley Streber. I think there are so many people just saying so much online. You don't know what's true and what's not. You're just waiting through a bog of. And it's difficult and you, so you just, you just negate all the, all the good stuff too. So.

[Pavel]

Yeah.

[Andy]

And that sort of answers vandals question. But you might want to expand on it for both of us. How do we filter out the, from the legitimate.

[Pavel]

For me it's sourcing. Like I, I don't feel comfortable releasing something that has a single source even if the source is well vetted and legit. And you know, because there's always this possibility that this person was told false information and they're relaying it. Which is why I think multiple sources are necessary. So that's my go to. What about you?

[Andy]

I, I don't see myself as a hard working researching journalist. I don't do a lot of that for me, the subjects about commentary. I enjoy watching other people's opinion speaking about other people's work, asking questions about what they do. I would rather send folks on to speak to credible folks, credible journalists than, than break a story myself. I, I don't feel that's my place to do that. And, and I suppose like I said earlier, I'll listen to everyone's opinion but I'll make up my own mind and it's fine if you like me. If you agree with me. If you don't agree with me, you're allowed to do that. Just keep it to yourself, though, like jumping on YouTube.

[Pavel]

Yeah. And don't be an. Yeah, you know what?

[Andy]

Be an. But you keep it to yourself like that. You don't have to like me. That's fine. Or my opinion doesn't mean you're right either. And if you are cool, that's fine.

[Pavel]

Clarify something. I do want to clarify something before we end, because I had to ban a person from the chat. I don't take slander lightly, you know, and I'm just gonna explain this a little bit just so people understand, because there seems to be this misconception that I'm part of the club of these people who are, like, reporting on this at the top. I am not part of any club. I am friendly with people like Gerb, for example, or Dylan Borland or Matthew Brown. But I have also told them that if I find out that they're lying, I'm gonna report on it. You know, you gotta keep it like that. And I do understand that me being like that and being opinionated and sometimes I give out opinions that these personalities don't like. Like James Fox, like Gary Noland, like Ross Coltheart, all of these guys, I don't mind that they're, for example, not granting me interviews because I'm opinionated and they don't like what I say. I really don't care about that. If they do, I'm still going to try and ask them questions that they're probably not gonna like, but I don't think that they will because that. That's. It's always been an indication of that. I'm always very upfront when I want to interview somebody. I tell them up front what I want to interview them about. Most of them has said no, and none of them are my friends. When I was in sports journalism, this is a golden rule for me. For me, a golden rule is don't ever make friends with athletes when I was doing sports journalism, because eventually you're going to have to write something negative about them because nobody's perfect. They all. Everybody makes mistakes. And it's way better to not have, like, a very close, friendly relationship with them than to have one if you want to report honestly about something. Because your biases go out the window when you become really good friends with somebody who's part of this stuff or any arena for that matter. And, yeah, the people that I currently trust the most are people like Gerb, like Dylan Borland, like Matthew Brown, like David Grush. But that doesn't mean that if I do find out unequivocally that one of them is lying, that I won't report on it because I, I like them or because I find them, you know, and I can't really be like best friends with any of them, but I will be polite and friendly and I will look at the true research that they do and judge it. And for me, for example, somebody like Gerb, who's been on YouTube since like 2013 or something like that, like, the dude has been for over a decade researching this topic and putting into question the type of research that he does, means that you're not paying attention to the stuff that he puts out. And for me, it's very important to treat the topic with respect. So if you're going to be putting out content like we are, for example, and if you're going to have like a guest, for example, for me, it's utterly disrespectful having a guest and they're promoting a book and you didn't even read like a third of the book. You know, that to me is a sign of disrespect. And the majority of people, especially the ones that are doing the more sensationalistic stuff, they don't read the material they don't like. It seems like they don't care and they still make their opinions known and they're still vitriolic. But when you look at the research that they do, it's pretty piss poor if you ask me. You know, just wanted to say that you're muted.

[Andy]

Muted again, amateur. There is one book right behind me that I have genuinely never read and it is my own. However, taking the opportunity to plug Atlas of Unidentified Final Objects, if folks want to check it out on Amazon. I've never read it because I wrote it, so I never feel the need that I have to read it because that feels weird. So, yeah. But yeah, the book is available on Amazon, folks, if you want to check it out. I've got one more question for you, Pavel, and it is for you, and I think it's a nice one to finish off on, but Elliot had asked me in the chat, are you still going to have Chris Ramsey on your podcast? Yes. There was a bit of a mixed communication with dates. Chris is on with me in a couple of days. I've had a lot of listener questions sent over, so it's going to be. I'm not interviewing Chris Ramsey because I'm not a big fan of Podcasters, interviewing podcasters. It's just been done to death. So for me, it's going to be a conversation, asking Chris listener questions, getting his opinion and going back and forward. Not too dissimilar, Pavel, to what we do, but just obviously an episode of the podcast. So folks, want to send over. You've got like 24 hours to send over a question for Chris Ramsey. I do have quite a lot, but, yeah, feel free to do that. And Pavel, final question from me. Well, from one of my listeners to you from Spicy Pavel, do you have any idea of when we may get to see you do a video with the author of the Reality Transparency act like you've been talking about recently? I know you've said when the time is right, but can you give us a rough idea of when that time may be roughly? You've got me extremely, extremely curious about this.

[Pavel]

Yeah, well, since right now the only bill that is being talked about is the uapda, my contact wants to still remain quiet with that for now. They just gave me permission to share the name, but I will ask this person and whatever they tell me, I will tell you. Hopefully we can get it before the end of the year, but I think that they're gonna let this process just keep moving and see if it passes. And if it does or if it doesn't, I think that we can talk about it. But I think after this entire process is done,

[Andy]

that's fair enough. Look at this super backhanded slap in the face of a compliment from Filet of Soul to me. Yeah, guys, I have Andy's book. Super smooth, glossy pages. What a way to say you think it's. But being nice to me, the pages were beautiful. Honestly, the paper quality is exceptional, and if you smack someone over the head with it, it really does some damage. It's got a lovely weight to it.

[Pavel]

Yeah, it's a bit of a. Bit of a brick. Bit of a brick.

[Andy]

Absolutely. So many things you can fix with it, but I appreciate you picking up a copy of it. I've got your money, so I don't give a if you liked it or not. But listen, that's. That's pretty much us, Pavel. We've went nearly two hours. I hope folks have enjoyed this and. And what's not been a huge week for, like, big breaking news. We've covered quite a few stories and things that people have wanted us to talk about, which is what this is all about. Yep. Like I say, from my perspective. And before I hand over to you, Pavel, to finish, I've got the Jonathan Kaplan who has a King's Council barrister here in the UK. His interview is out in the next kind of 24 to 48 hours. Chris Ramsey's interview will also be out this week. And of course, this is the usual Monday show that'll be dropping on audio feeds over the next few hours and stuff for folks too. And I'm glad folks are enjoying it and interacting because if they send us in their questions, if they send us in their thoughts and let us know what they want to hear, then we can take this kind of conversation in any direction we want. But I've been enjoying it, Pavel. And next time it's up to you to host. So I've got less work to do, but I'll let you finish off with what's kind of coming up for you.

[Pavel]

Yeah, I got next week, I got two interviews. I had to move them for that week because of Comic con. I'm having Dr. John Blitch and Nathaniel Gillis on the show and I'm currently talking to Reese Dalton Morgan from the U of Aussie. He's gonna be on the show too. And a couple more that I'm still not feeling that comfortable with. I did get, oh, Thomas Jane is gonna be on the show too, but we haven't scheduled it yet. So yeah, that's what's happening. And yeah, let's see what happens this week. I think that something is going to be released on Friday. Let's see if it's more of the same or something different. Let's see.

[Andy]

Awesome. Well, folks, thank you so much for joining in. Please make sure you like leave a like on both videos. If you're on Pavel's channel, jump over to mine. Leave a like if you're on my channel. Take you two seconds. Jump onto C. Coactivo podcast. Leave a like if you get the chance to hype, click hype. It makes a big difference to folks like us. And a comment on the main video too is always appreciated, even if it's telling us you hate us. Always helps the algorithm. So yeah, and that would be. That would be great. And Pavel, awesome talking and we'll catch up next week, especially if there's stuff coming out on Friday. No doubt we'll cover it in breaking news formats as well. But then we'll be back to discuss that after the weekend too.

[Pavel]

Yep. Thank you, Andy. Thank you for your time, man. And thank you to everybody on the chat. I did have to ban someone, but, you know, tough.

[Andy]

Oh, someone said I've blocked them by the way. I have not blocked anyone. So just so you know Bill, I think Pavel just asked again where they can get a copy of my book. Pavel yeah, it's on Amazon and all good book sellers if you want a signed copy. I do have a box with about 15 in it that if people want they can request from me. But you have to pay the postage and stuff to whatever country you're in. But yeah, that is a great book. And yeah, also apparently boosts your wifi signal, so I don't know if that's. But yeah, there we are. So thank you folks. I appreciate your time. Pavel as always, mate, have a good one and we'll speak to you all soon.

[Pavel]

Bye bye.