Solo Chris - Disclosure Delayed? UPDATE on UAP Disclosure Act of 2023.
Dec 12, 2023Season 1Episode 4
Chris and Steve
Are you ready for a thrilling exploration into the labyrinthine world of UAP legislation? Sure you are!
Join Chris as he dives into the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 and its dramatic transformation thanks to malicious political machinations. How Senators Chuck Schumer and Mike Rounds' groundbreaking UAP proposal lost its potency, evolving into the seemingly innocuous Subtitle C Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.
But don't lose hope; momentum is building towards UAP disclosure. Chris tracks the efforts of politicians who are challenging the cloaked resistance to transparency. He also scrutinizes the media's role in this rapidly unfolding narrative and ponder the potential impact of uncontrolled disclosure on society.
So buckle up for this rollercoaster ride into the unknown, as we bring you all the updates on this riveting journey of UAP disclosure and how it can usher in a huge leap forward for humanity.
Are you ready for a thrilling exploration into the labyrinthine world of UAP legislation? Sure you are!
Join Chris as he dives into the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 and its dramatic transformation thanks to malicious political machinations. How Senators Chuck Schumer and Mike Rounds' groundbreaking UAP proposal lost its potency, evolving into the seemingly innocuous Subtitle C Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.
But don't lose hope; momentum is building towards UAP disclosure. Chris tracks the efforts of politicians who are challenging the cloaked resistance to transparency. He also scrutinizes the media's role in this rapidly unfolding narrative and ponder the potential impact of uncontrolled disclosure on society.
So buckle up for this rollercoaster ride into the unknown, as we bring you all the updates on this riveting journey of UAP disclosure and how it can usher in a huge leap forward for humanity.
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!
Speaker 1:
The UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 will be included in the National Defense Authorization Act. It's been defanged, some would say completely neutered. What did they change? What are they passing? What did they leave out? And will any of this make a difference? And what happens next? Let's talk about it. Chris here, flying solo once again to bring you all an update on the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023.
Speaker 1:
That legislation was introduced by Senator Chuck Schumer, democrat from New York, and Senator Mike Rounds, republican from South Dakota, in the Senate and was going to be included in the Defense Authorization Act, which is what they pass every year to fund the military. So the UAP Disclosure Act was certainly an ambitious piece of legislation. As far as UAPs go UFOs I don't think we've ever seen a proposed law on UAP not that there have been many to compare it to that are this powerful in what they were attempting to do. This was the Disclosure Act. This was called the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023. So it was proposing disclosure of UAP secrets. When you looked at the specific provisions of this proposed legislation, they were mentioning things like non-human intelligence 20-something times. They were defining it even to say what do they mean when they say that, and it was very clearly something not of this Earth. So the very fact that this was even put up there by Chuck Schumer and Mike Rounds is the fact that it was even done is highly significant. It was proposing a review board appointed by the President of the United States. Do you think that the Senate Majority Leader was proposing legislation giving the President of the United States more authority in a certain area without discussing it with him and his staff? I mean, it's known that Chuck Schumer at least has, you know, weekly conversations with at least the White House, but probably with President Biden himself. So anyway, the point is is that this wasn't coming from just nowhere and it certainly wasn't just a fringe thing that was put on by some obscure politician. This was rolled out by the big guns. So anyway, that's just to set up the story.
Speaker 1:
The Senate had already passed the full wording of the UAP Disclosure Act. Now I would highly recommend going in getting that. Google it, you can find it out there. It's out there. It's 60-something pages. You can see that they were really detailing how they wanted to roll this out Now they had passed it.
Speaker 1:
So now it had to be agreed to by the House, and that's where the resistance came from the resistance to passing this, or at least provisions of this. Most of the major provisions of this came from only a few small quarters, one of them being Representative Mike Turner, from Ohio. He represents the area with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Wright-patterson Air Force Base has been a character in the long story of UFOs for quite some time. A significant location is believed to be where the Roswell wreckage was taken immediately after, but that's not the only time it's come up. And also Mike Turner has a lot of defense contractor donations, so him and a few others also with similar ties fought this in the House, and so they had to have a conference, and what they could clear goes on the Defense Authorization Act, the Intelligence Authorization Act, the National Defense Authorization Act the version of this act that passed differs significantly from the Senate version.
Speaker 1:
I'm just going to list some of the major ways and then we'll talk about them a little bit. First of all, it's no longer called the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023. That name has been stripped from it. It's now just called Subtitle C Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. Take some of the significance out of it, for sure. Definitions the original version actually defined non-human intelligence and defined technologies of unknown origin. So that was stripped. So there is no mention of non-human intelligence. It mentions UAPs, unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, but in a very generalized way.
Speaker 1:
The Civilian Review Board appointed by the President and would be able to advise the President on which specific pieces of information could be disclosed to the public and which should continue to be kept behind a security firewall. But it was a civilian board appointed by the President, of highly diverse and respected people in their various fields. So it wasn't just meant to be a bunch of Pentagon employees or defense contractors. It was meant to be a wide variety of like an economist or a sociologist or religious representation or any number of things scientific, obviously, the different branches. So that was a really powerful thing. Unfortunately, that has been removed from this version and is no longer in there.
Speaker 1:
Eminent domain, which was going to give the federal government the power to take back any materials of non-human origin that may be in the hands of private contractors who took possession of these physical craft, or at least pieces of craft, after the military recovered them. That those would still be the property of the US government and that they would have the power to take that back. That also was stripped from this act. And lastly, subpoena powers, the review board and they were going to be the power to call people before them and ask questions of some of these reported materials and information on UAP that certain sectors of the military and intelligence community possess separately but are unwilling to share with anyone else. And there's a lot of this siloing going on.
Speaker 1:
So that was another major part of this proposed act is that it was going to have a civilian body appointed by the president, who could look down top view you know, top down view of this, of the entire spectrum of information about UAPs, everything related, no matter how secure or locked behind whatever walls and was they were going to be able to advise the president on hey, the public can know this, the public, well, maybe shouldn't know this, but the presumption it was even worded in the act that the presumption would be towards release. So they would start with the presumption that, hey, we can release this and they would have to be convinced by you know the information itself or people that they could subpoena from those you know departments and say, hey, why are we keeping this secret? I'll give you your case. So that was, that was taken away. So what, what is left?
Speaker 1:
Well, the one thing they left in was the archivist of the National Archives being able to collect all the UAP information in a centralized location and preserve them, index them. Supposedly there's some government accountability in there built into there, where they'll have to show that they're not destroying records. They'll have to be digitally accessible and reviewed periodically. There are some good things in there. There are some positive, positive movement being made towards disclosure, but anything significant has been completely stripped by only a few small individual representatives Of the House of Representatives. Maybe three or four had the power to turn what was the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 into this subtitle C, unidentified, anomalous phenomena with really no teeth. So the question you have to ask yourself if you are skeptical that there is anything to this issue is why would a small number of politicians politicians seemingly beholden to defense contractors be inclined to stop government transparency if there's nothing there to discover? Because that's been the story of well, the government for a long time up until fairly recently.
Speaker 1:
They've come clean to some degree certainly not to the degree they should, but more so than they ever have, mostly being ignored by the mainstream press in general. Yeah, they cover the subject every now and again, but certainly not to the degree which things are happening. The exception to this, of course, is News Nation. I am not a fan of cable news in general. I used to watch it a lot and I've come to realize that, especially with cable news, their main purpose is not informing me or anyone. Their main purpose is to keep people watching and keep them glued to the television. So they're gonna be and this is of all cable news, for the most part news in general. They're gonna wanna keep you riled up, angry or afraid, but they do also cover what's going on out there to a certain degree.
Speaker 1:
And as far as cable news channels go, I know this is a ringing endorsement. I kind of like News Nation. Yes, it has some of that very typical cable news partisan, very editorial, disguised as factual news. They have a little bit of that, can't avoid it. But they do have their straight news coverage, which isn't too bad, and they treat the UAP issue as the significant news story that it is. They have reporters assigned to it, looking into it, asking good questions, following the threads, following the obvious threads of hey, there's a lot of high level people who are saying something's going on here. There is proposed legislation from arguably the most powerful politicians, elected officials in the Senate, seemingly backed by the White House, proposing to open the doors on all that the government knows about UAPs and it's being blocked. They're following that thread On significant UAP news days. I know such a thing may sound absurd, but there are such things, as there have been days when large events have happened, such as the UAP Disclosure Act and several interviews by David Grush. News Nation covers it. Sometimes they'll have a story every hour on UAPs and what's going on and government movement and politicians, elected officials, you know, sometimes experts they bring on to talk about it. So I will give them that. But generally speaking, the media has not covered this story yet. It may be getting to a point where they can't they can't avoid it. I mean, there's gonna be a point where News Nation is gonna get so much mileage from being the only network covering this and there's obviously a story here. There's obviously something going on.
Speaker 1:
No matter what you think it is at, in the end it may not be nonhuman at all. I, some are still clinging to that hope that it Is going to be us. Either US technology developed secretly that's the preferred option or Some people reluctantly kind of say, well, it could. Just, you know, could be our adversaries. Again, wishful thinking on their part, and strange wishful thinking, because you know, most security experts for us at least say that if any of our adversaries had Technology that could do these things well, we should be very, very, very worried. So it's a strange thing to hope for, but there they are still hoping for it, and you see this attitude a lot of times in the Press mainstream press when they talk about it is, they'll always ask the question of whoever they're talking to. You know well, don't we think this is our own technology or technology of China or Russia? It's funny. They keep asking that question, even though that specific point has been Refused by the government multiple times in multiple different arenas, where they say you know, no, it's not us, it's not us, it's not any part of us. The highest authority has said it's not us and if anyone was gonna know there was something going on, it should be them. It's something else, we just don't know what. And that fact hasn't caught the Full attention of most of the media. So this issue is picking up steam.
Speaker 1:
This Alteration of the UAP disclosure act is certainly a blow against full disclosure, or is it? Maybe it's just a blow against controlled Disclosure, because that's what this act kind of was. It was controlled disclosure, very orderly, very measured, very Structured and had a timeline, and really let's take our time and make sure it was an olive branch held out to those who are keeping these secrets, because it being told from the, from those who are trying to get these secrets out into the open, their intent on doing so, and this was one method, the other one being what has been affectionately referred to as catastrophic disclosure. That is a term that's being thrown around now. Catastrophic disclosure meaning simply disclosure of the presence of nonhuman intelligence interacting with our planet for some amount of time and possible possession of technologies from those nonhuman intelligence by, you know, parts of private corporations, our space corporations also. You know a cover-up 70, 90, a lot of years. I mean you can argue about when the cover-up started, but there has been a definite cover-up by some elements within the government To hide this, a cover-up to keep this away from people. At some point that information is going to start to come out. The number of whistleblowers may grow, their position and Respectability and you know how their word is measured the quality of them may go way up in surprising ways, documents, pictures, videos, things might be released, or at least ones that are taken, authenticated in some official capacity. You're gonna start to see movement on this in a lot of different ways. I Think disclosure is still coming. I Think it's coming sooner. I in full, in an uncontrolled manner, because of what happened with this UAP disclosure act of 2023. You could almost see it Immediately.
Speaker 1:
There was a push in different quarters to get information out there. You know, the Daily Mail published another story about a whistleblower and talking about hidden non-human craft. They've had a few of these stories here and there about whistleblowers and possible possession of non-human tech. So it's nothing new. It's not, you know. It's not as if that was on CNN or, you know, nbc or ABC News or something like that. But the story started coming out in different places.
Speaker 1:
Some politicians started making noise as well, particularly the ones that have been very vocal. As far as you know, uap disclosure Immediately representative Andy Ogles. He is, you know, more right-leaning, but he had a very strong statement right after basically saying this is about taking the deep state to task for their refusal to to declassify what the American people need to see. Regarding UAP Jared Moskowitz Democrat, he's been asking a very simple question and he put out a statement if none of this exists, if this is all false, why, at every turn, are there people trying to stop the transparency? That's what piques the interest. He was brought into it because of the reluctance of certain quarters of the Pentagon to allow information to even get in the hands of elected representatives. So that was what piqued his interest and as he got more and more involved and saw the roadblocks that were being put in front of them for asking the questions, he got interested. And I think that's where we're at now.
Speaker 1:
I think that the blockage of this act, or the key aspects of this act changing its name, watering it down, blocking transparency is going to be the thing that gets the attention. Maybe finally, of some you know investigative elements that so far haven't wanted to look into any of this. Maybe they'll actually look and say, huh, that's strange, they're blocking this. They're working very hard and spending a lot of effort to stop this from happening. Might there be a story behind those walls? So I think that's gonna come. I think it's already been happening for quite a while. It's been building up. You're seeing a lot more legitimate press legitimate press in parentheses, but what is considered the legitimate or mainstream press Cover the story. A little bit of the snark is being removed, not as much as should, but it's not as bad as it was even five, six years ago, certainly not as bad as it was, you know, 20 years ago. So they're starting to cover it and they're starting to be a huge build-up towards information coming out in an uncontrolled or back to what they call catastrophic disclosure way.
Speaker 1:
The question can be asked well, catastrophic to whom? They made it sound like it's catastrophic to everybody. If this information comes out uncontrolled, it will be catastrophic to everyone. And you know what? I'm sure you could make an argument for that. I'm sure you could say that you know this would shake our core institutions to such a degree that you'd be hard-pressed to find an individual who wasn't their life wasn't touched in some significant way by this. So in that way you could argue hey, it's catastrophic because it's going to affect everyone.
Speaker 1:
You know how will religions react? How will you know the stock market react? How will the individuals react? Will they just accept the fact? Hey, there is this non-human intelligence interacting with us and in the power differential, we seem to be on the low end of that spectrum? Will that trouble them? Will that scare them? Will they want to go to work the next day? Will they want to just get up and go to the office and do their 40 hours this week when they learn that potentially there is technology, or the promise of technology, in the hands of our government, or elements thereof, that could eliminate the need for oil or what burning fossil fuels or wrecking the environment or any number of things that could improve the quality of life here on Earth and the implications that those possibly world changing technologies have been purposefully kept for whatever reason.
Speaker 1:
Call it national security, call it profit and greed, whatever bucket you want to put that in, and people are going to be upset, and all this does have the possibility of crumbling our institutions, at least to some degree. But I also think that humans in general are resilient and if pressed, we adapt to change. Not all of us, not all of us smoothly, not all of us without a lot of bumps in the road, but over the long haul we do react to the change and go with it. So I think this will be a good thing. It will not be without its negative points. No thing, no matter what it is, I think, is ever 100% good or 100% bad. Even the worst tragedies of history, there was some positive effect for someone in the equation. Wherever you find it, no matter how terrible a thing was, there was somebody who benefited from it in some way. Most things work out that way. It will be a good thing in the end. Disclosure will be a positive thing for us humanity.
Speaker 1:
It may not be a positive thing in the short run unless we can really get up to speed and roll with the changes fast enough, because, going back to my statement about nothing being good or nothing being bad completely 100%, then we can find the good from it, we can turn it into a positive if we react with the changes.
Speaker 1:
But until then, I'm going to keep rattling this cage and banging this drum and trying to bring information out there to whoever wants to listen to it, about what's going on with UAPs, because I think we're in an unprecedented era of progress on this front. I think we're going to get to the point where there's going to be progress almost constantly, and at what point does that progress hit a momentum, a point of no return, where full disclosure not only becomes likely but almost inevitable, and I think we're almost there and I'm going to continue to bring you the updates as it happens, and I'll probably try to do this on a regular basis because, as I said, there's a lot of news then there will be in 2024 and a lot more to be said. So this is Chris signing off. Until next time, see ya.
