(Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve
(Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve
(Not So) Deep Sh*t on UFO Disclosure - (Part 1)
Discover the hidden truths behind UFOs and UAPs as we tackle the latest developments in government transparency. Ever wondered why key documents about unidentified phenomena are still shrouded in secrecy? Join us as we unpack the significant efforts made by senators like Chuck Schumer and Mike Rounds through the UAP Disclosure Act. While the Act mandates all agencies to submit their UFO data to the National Archives and release documents older than 25 years, it falls short of its original promise by omitting the creation of a UAP review board. We explore the ongoing tug-of-war between military secrecy and the public's right to know.
In a compelling Senate floor discussion, Schumer and Rounds likened the need for transparency to the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, emphasizing the importance of government accountability. We'll also delve into the enigmatic refusal of every president from Clinton to Trump to release a mysterious 30-year-old document. What could be so sensitive that it has been withheld for decades? Tune in to explore these fascinating topics and understand the critical need for transparency to rebuild public trust. This episode is a must-listen for anyone curious about the government's role in UFO disclosure.
Contact Us:
Twitter: @NotSoDeepShit
Facebook.com/NSDSChrisandSteve
Instagram.com/nsdschrisandsteve
Email: nsdschrisandsteve@gmail.com
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!
I'm Chris, I'm Steve, and we're talking about some deep shit, and we're back to talk about some more deep shit. How's it going, steve? Chris, how you doing? Very good, very good indeed. We're on a roll. Here we are, we are I'm excited, yes, and we're in the throes of summer, which is nice, the warm weather. We love that, yes, I do, and we have exciting topics to talk about. What do we got today? So, yes, I do, and we have exciting topics to talk about. What do we got today? So we're going back to the topic you and I both love, which is UFOs, uap.
Speaker 2:We have to give an update.
Speaker 1:There's a lot going on.
Speaker 2:Yes, and we've had some episodes on different subjects, which is nice to do sometimes, but I always like coming back to this.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we definitely want some variety. It can't be all UFO, although you know I could talk about ufos always, but there's other interesting stuff, so it's we're gonna add those in and then the ufo stuff will come about as there's developments, as there are to talk about today. Yeah, so where did we leave off from the ufo saga? Last was at the end of last year, right, it's when we were kind of kind of the last time we talked about. Yeah, I think you're right, and that was when we were kind of kind of the last time we talked about it. Yeah, I think you're right, and that was when the UAP Disclosure Act had been proposed in the Senate to attach it to in the House and the Senate to attach it to the National Defense Authorization Act, which is every year they pass this huge omnibus bill that funds the military. Here's all the stuff we're going to spend money on and they were putting this thing in called the UAP Disclosure Act, and I think I did a little episode about it, talking about all the. I think we might have done an episode together where we talked about it, but I think I did a solo thing where I kind of went over some of the provisions of it. So it's out there if you want to go back and listen to it. But that was it passed, but not in its full form. Explain that, okay.
Speaker 1:So let's talk about what it was first, because it's important. So the UAP Disclosure Act was proposed by Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Mike Rounds, a Republican. So I mean Schumer's, you know speak, I'm not Schumer's the what is he in the Senate? He's the Minority leader. Yeah, yes, the minority leader. I mean, he's a big name in the Senate, yeah, and Mike Rounds as well. So the fact that these two politicians of that high caliber came in and were proposing this Now, they weren't the only ones. The sponsors of this were Chuck Schumer and Mike Rounds, and Marco Rubio and Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Todd Young, a Republican, and Senator Martin Heinrich, a Democrat. So this is again completely bipartisan Very, very rare to see these days.
Speaker 2:And the purpose, my understanding of this whole beginning of all this was the politicians that we're talking about, and others maybe that we're not talking about, believed there was enough going on that they thought the military wasn't telling them everything they wanted to know.
Speaker 1:Right, right. They were saying hey, listen, there's something hiding, they're hiding something?
Speaker 2:What's going on? Whatever it might be, you need to tell us.
Speaker 1:Right, Because although there's been evidence that has come out to the public, those hearings and things like that behind the scenes, I'm hearing that senators and congresspeople are hearing a lot more.
Speaker 2:Again hearing that senators and congresspeople are hearing a lot more right again, not everything but basic. One of the basic elements is um the military isn't its own entity. It works for the government.
Speaker 1:So you have to answer questions as to what's happening. It's kind of basic. Yes, and they are. You know, politicians, that senators and and congresspeople are getting very upset that it seems like they're getting and run around them, that the military and intelligence organizations are not tying them in to what's going on here.
Speaker 2:Well, it's been a long time that that's been the dynamic.
Speaker 1:Yes. So this was their attempt to say, all right, we're going to get all this out in the open or at least start the process. So, okay, so some of the provisions One of the main things was they wanted to get all the UFO data, uap data, you know whatever they want to call it from all the different agencies to one place being the National Archives. So all the different branches have been instructed now, because that provision did pass, they have to give all their information to the national archives and I believe the drop dead date is sometime in october of this year, so they had that much time to get it together. And the other part of it was that there's a presumption of release for documents that are older than 25 years. What does that mean? That the thought process is that there's no reason why the public shouldn't be able to see documents that are 25 years old and older.
Speaker 2:Now is the caveat always unless there's a national security, unless there's a national security thing. So it doesn't matter how old it is right now.
Speaker 1:The hard part about this is there are other things that this legislation was supposed to do that was supposed to be included, that was going to help with that, and one of them was a um? Uap review board which was going to be made up of hand-picked individuals, nominated by members of the Senate, I believe, and would have to go through confirmation like any kind of position, and they had certain people from military, certain people from intelligence, certain people from sociology, economics. Basically, there was a provision to say it had to be a wide range of people who would help advise the president on which documents to release and which documents to keep hidden, but the president would have the final say on any document. So while getting the records together that survived. Unfortunately, the record review board part was pulled. Another part that was in it was a whole part about a controlled disclosure plan.
Speaker 1:That's the mind-blowing part about this legislation. If you're listening to this, google that. Go and Google the UAP Disclosure Act and read, check out what the full bill was, because if you see this, they mentioned the term non-human intelligence like 20 something times. They define it. They have the definition. They can define non. The legislation defined non-human intelligence as any sentient, intelligent, non-human life form, which suggests official consideration of the possibilities that UAPs could be related to non-human entities? Wait a minute.
Speaker 2:The second part. I didn't get.
Speaker 1:I'm basically saying that it's presumed that these objects are flying around are non-human, that there's something other than us here, like it's coming out and saying it basically.
Speaker 2:Are they assuming it or are they saying it's a possibility?
Speaker 1:They're saying that that's the evidence that needs to be released. Again, we're not going to know until we know, right Until it's out. And there's still a huge portion of the public who doesn't even believe this stuff is real. You know it's still and there's still a huge portion of the public who doesn't even believe this stuff is real. You know it's still. We're still fighting that whole. Is it real thing where for most people in the know, that question has been asked and answered? It is?
Speaker 2:I think a large amount of people, while they might not just say that they believe any kind of phenomenon in the sky as a result of non-human intelligence, I do believe that there's a lot of people that believe I'm kind of rambling, but I think there are a lot of people that now kind of say, well, they think it's a possibility?
Speaker 1:yes, and obviously not every everyone and it's. Nowadays it's a lot easier to find things that aren't that in the sky. I mean, there's more satellites and stuff circling the earth than at any other time. There's more space launches and things. Other countries are doing things as well. There's just more stuff in the air, which has been why the military and has been very careful I'll say the pentagon has been very careful to frame the whole UAP thing as 2004 onward.
Speaker 1:If you notice that that's really they're pretending that it started there, because then it's a lot easier to say, oh well, these ones were drones or these ones were a plane. It's easier to say that in 2024, harder to say that for the ones in the 40s and the 50s and the 60s and the early 70s. You know we didn't have commercial drones, we didn't have as many things flying around, so there's a reason why they come at it like this. So, so that that is a big thing they talk about. Um, the review board. I was going to say what else? Eminent domain, that was another clause that was in there, basically saying that if private industry has possession of non-human technology, that the federal government owns that and the federal government can take it back and compensate them for it, but it's the federal government that owns it.
Speaker 1:That's one of the provisions that caused the most consternation among some people. Um, actually the owner of skinwalker ranch, um, brandon fugal, um and a few others opposed the legislation on that grounds because they didn't like the way it was worded. That that made them worried that the government was going to come in and take you know anything. They? Oh that's connected, we're taking it. I don't know. I think it should be. I don't know if the wording's like this, but it really should specify if the?
Speaker 1:U the US government recovered it, because I think that's the problem is, if government resources recovered craft or wreckage or whatever, and what's being claimed is that it's been put in private aerospace, which is why it's hard to get at, because it's not, you're not able to Freedom of Information Act. It's hard to get at because it's not, you're not able to Freedom of Information Act. It's protected from all the countermeasures in government that we have. It's protected because they moved it over to private aerospace and the number of people who know about this stuff is very small, and so that's the thing is that it's hard to get at, and so this legislation was trying to address that and say no, no, no. If you're private aerospace and you have something that the us government recovered, you got to give it back.
Speaker 1:It's ours and you know, we'll, we'll, you know, give you something for it, but we're not going to let you keep it, and so that was the other other part of it, um, so anyway.
Speaker 1:So that was all going to be. There was a lot more to it, but that was the main things and it got. They say it got gutted, it got trimmed. There was some resistance in the house. The way this works is the house has their version, the senate has their version and then, where it differs, they have to come together in some sort of committee. The committee comes together and kind of hashes it out. So when the house was hashing it out, there's still some question as to who the opponents were. But there were some powerful opponents that were able to strip many of the the most provocative measures from it, but they couldn't kill it all together. So while the review board was taken out, while eminent domain was taken out, while the you know, the whole control disclosure plan was taken out, the core core of it, which was hey, all the records have to be at the archives by October and start to take out a provision such as eminent domain- if there wasn't, you know, and not just reward it, take it out.
Speaker 2:If there wasn't something to this, right it's. You know. If you were making a rule that I couldn't do, something that I just was never going to do, I wouldn't fight you about it, you know.
Speaker 1:Yes, I mean, obviously, if there's nothing to hide, then what's the problem? If there's no, if there's no non-human tech, then the fact that it's written in legislation that non-human tech can be confiscated by the government shouldn't matter. All right, we don't have any 're right? And? And the congress people there's a couple of them, um, I know, um, I think there's a guy named turner. I, I think ohio maybe, but there's a couple who have been. They've been pointed out as being like, hey, there's, these are the ones who are trying to stop it, and all of them have big ties to, uh, aerospace, oh, okay, and you know and even like in, and one of them, right patterson air, for air force bases in their district.
Speaker 1:And so right patterson is often where they say a lot of things end up or have ended up in the past. So that's the problem is. Is that, yeah, there's people like, oh, it didn't go through. Well, you're right, why would they? Why would they resist that if there's nothing to hide? So when this legislation went down, it's not dead, it's just they trimmed it. They're going to try again. I mean, they're going to attempt to put those provisions back in. So very interesting.
Speaker 1:So after the legislation got killed, senator Schumer and Senator Rounds did what's called a colloquy on the Senate floor. What was the purpose of it? So a colloquy is a that way they can have a discussion between the two on the floor for everybody to hear, but it doesn't have to go through the Speaker of the House or the President of the Senate. It's sort of like here's a little conversation we're having here, just sort of talking things out, and they do it for like it's showboat reasoning. You know it's hey, we want to bring this topic out, so we're going to have a little, and oftentimes that's between two members of the same party. You know, hey, I want to talk about this, and here's another congressperson or senator In this case it was a Republican and a Democrat so I want to play some clips of it because I it's so important.
Speaker 1:So this happened days after they. The legislation was kind of curtailed, and so Chuck Schumer got up and he on the Senate floor and this was televised. You can find this on YouTube and it's out there and all that. They discussed it, and so we'll listen to little parts of that and then we can we can talk about each bit. So I'm going to start off here. This is the beginning.
Speaker 3:Thank you, mr President. So I see my friend, senator Rounds, is on the floor and ask him to engage in a colloquy on an important set of provisions in the NDAA that deals with transparency, trust and government oversight the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act that he and I co-sponsored and portions of which we will pass in the NDAA. I say to my friend that unidentified unanimous phenomena are of immense interest and curiosity to the American people. But with that curiosity comes the risk for confusion, disinformation and mistrust, especially if the government isn't prepared to be transparent.
Speaker 3:The United States government has gathered a great deal of information about UAPs over many decades but has refused to share it with the American people. That is wrong and additionally it breeds mistrust. We've also been notified by multiple credible sources that information on UAPs has also been withheld from Congress, which, if true, is a violation of the laws requiring full notification to the legislative branch, especially as it relates to the four congressional leaders, the defense committees and the intelligence committee. So the bill I worked on with Senator Rounds offered a common-sense solution. Let's increase transparency on UAPs by using a model that works. By following what the federal government did 30 years ago with the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act. They established a presidentially appointed board to review and release these records, and it was a huge success. We should do the same here with UAPs.
Speaker 1:So that's. I mean that's pretty strong wording. I mean he basically is saying they have information that stuff is being kept from Congress and breaking the law.
Speaker 3:Oh absolutely.
Speaker 2:I mean, he says that plainly right. I mean that's and that's. He says that's the motivation for doing the disclosure, right.
Speaker 1:I mean that's pretty and that's, he says, that's the motivation for doing the disclosure, Right? I mean that's pretty that again you're talking about Chuck Schumer, You're not talking about, you know, some Congress person who's only been in one term. I mean, this is, this is a heavy hitter in the Senate, always has been since since his mentor, and it's interesting, you know who his mentor was, who was from Las Vegas, it was. Oh, why am I blanking on nevada? Yeah, nevada that's right.
Speaker 2:Um, oh, now you got me yeah, we gotta look this up harry reed, harry reed.
Speaker 1:So his mentor was harry reed, who also was very big on this topic, right, and so he's sort of taken over. Since harry reid passed, you know, left the senate and then passed away, he's taken over this thing. So so that was the beginning of it. And again I just want to point out he says right out they have information that things are being kept from congress and a violation of the law. That that's huge, you know, know. So I don't play a little bit more and Senator from South Dakota.
Speaker 3:I yield.
Speaker 4:Thank you and I thank my colleague, the Democrat leader, for the opportunity to speak to this particular issue today.
Speaker 4:This is an issue that that I think has caught the attention of the American people and most certainly the lack of transparency on the matter, which is of real interest to a lot of the folks that have watched from the outside. It brings together, I think, a notable parallel in the withholding of information about items that are in the government's possession regarding, in this particular case, the assassination of President John F Kennedy. That same approach by government in terms of the possible withholding of information brings more questions and more attention to the issue of the assassination, attention to the issue of the assassination. We wanted to take that same approach with regard to how we could dispel myths, misinformation about UAPs, about unidentified flying objects, unidentified objects that simply have come to the attention of the American people. Congress did pass legislation 30 years ago requiring the review and release of all records relating to that historic tragedy, the assassination of john kennedy, which has led to the release of a great deal of information. The uap disclosure act was closely modeled on the jfk records act.
Speaker 1:And you know how fortuitous we just talked about JFK recently and it was modeled after that. So I've heard people say, okay, well, the JFK documents, you know that didn't really work. We still don't have an answer right. And so I've heard a lot of people compare the two because obviously they modeled it after and if you think about it, it's not a fair comparison because we know the assassination took place, we all saw it. Disclosure is of what happened.
Speaker 2:So if you move it over to the UFO topic, Well, the disclosure really is what their investigation was at the end of the day. Well, the disclosure really is what their investigation was.
Speaker 1:At the end of the day, If you move it over to the UAP topic, it would be akin to saying well, we have to admit that the assassination took place. Do you know what I'm saying? Like once you say the assassination took place, which it did, because we all know it took place. The records are trying to dig that up. But if you move that over to the UFO topic, the assassination taking place is. There are UFOs.
Speaker 3:Well, yeah, there is something to investigate, right.
Speaker 1:So just that alone, that admission is, is significant even if we don't have all that. There is something, see, the hardest thing we're up against.
Speaker 2:I kind of feel like they're admitting that they.
Speaker 1:They've admitted it. They've admitted it so openly.
Speaker 2:The only people who don't believe it are the, the, the, you know the masses who don't believe it because the news hasn't told them yet well I that nobody disputes, I think, even in the government, even people that have testified so far, um, at the hearing, that, well, you know the few hearings they've had. Um, military people, um, they, there are a percentage, there is a percentage that are indeed unidentified, anomalous, anomalous, however you want to phrase it, they're there. I think that what American people might be trying to do as a parallel, I guess, is well, you know, they released these documents on JFK and we still don't know exactly who it is. Well, you're right, that probably is never going to happen, because I truly do not believe there are people in the government that are protecting people that killed John F Kennedy. I don't think that's a thing. I think, if those documents existed, that said, oh look, there's no document, that just points to the person that did it.
Speaker 1:I think there's documents, though, that point to the organization that the intelligence agencies, and that's what they're trying to protect.
Speaker 2:You're right about that. But regarding how you would switch it to UAPs, no, I don't think you're uh documents that necessarily, you know, say yes, uh, we, we have been hiding this from the american people and, and here's why I think you'll find documents. I mean, if there's, if, god almighty, if they do actually have, um, non-human intelligence, well, okay, that's a smoking gun, right. I don't know if you're going to find the same smoking gun with the john f kennedy documents. This is all I'm trying to say. Like you can find if, if there's an inventory of non-human intelligence, okay, there's a document that says that, right. I don't know if you're going to find a document that says, oh, by the way, these people in the cia put it together, I don't know if you're going to find that I know there's something though you know what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 1:There's some sort of document that the president, all presidents, have refused to release.
Speaker 1:I mean, that's the thing is when he says 30 years ago, you know this, this legislation went through saying, hey, you gotta release it all, like the uap disclosure act. The final uh, you know arbiter of whether things are released or not is the president of the united states and, for some unknown reason, clinton, bush, obama, trump like they've all decided to push it off and kick the can. I think bush senior as well like going back to when that legislation kicked in? Yeah, it should have all been released. But every president since has been like shit off and kick the can. I think bush senior as well like going back to when that legislation kicked in? Yeah, it should have all been released. But every president since has been like, well, some of the stuff, no, and what else would be in those documents except the answer? Because only the answer could embarrass like what? What else could it be?
Speaker 2:I mean, we know everything else, right, yeah, there's so many ways you could look at that one and that's not the podcast. But I always wondered with that, when they say national security because that's the catch-all right, yes, of course. Either it's they know who did it and they didn't do anything about it, or there was a faction of our own government that did it.
Speaker 1:And they found out after the fact.
Speaker 2:And they found out after the fact, and either one isn't good for American people to know, right? So I really can't think of another option. But someone else might think of one, and with this one I can certainly say yeah, if you've been lying to people point blank and having the information that the same thing you're saying to my faces is, you're saying it's not true and you holding documents that say it is true, right well, you've.
Speaker 1:you've shaken the foundation of our belief in anything you say true, yeah, and that's, and that's part of the problem and we'll you know, that's a common theme we keep coming back to is that when, not if?
Speaker 2:when this information is acknowledged by the populace, it's out the information information's out you know you were citing the thing they're talking about of, of of stages. Right, you don't start talking about stages of things. It's just an odd thing to talk about, uh, when you, if you're talking about something that you don't think exists.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Why would I have to do it in stages?
Speaker 1:Right, it's very obvious there's something, so we've got a couple more parts of this, but again, it's fascinating.
Speaker 1:Again, this took place on the Senate floor this was there for reporters, for media to see, but they don't seem to be questioning. They don't seem to go questioning. They don't seem to go. Huh, that's interesting. But why is this important? It's important there's a lot of things going on. They don't do colloquies on the senate floor about all of them, right? They pick this. So that means that senator schumer and senator rounds must feel pretty strongly about this to do that. Remember there was a time when no elected official would even talk about ufos or even pretend.
Speaker 1:I mean that that sunk uh dennis kasinich, uh his political presidency back in. I think it was like the 2008 time, or whatever he was uh, yes he, he, he was, he had seen something, and all he said was yeah, we saw something in the air and I don't, couldn't identify it. And all of a sudden, he was crazy and they. So the fact that you have important senators like this talking about it alone is huge. So anyway, we'll go on a little bit further.
Speaker 3:It's beyond disappointing that the House has refused to work with us on all the important elements of the UAP Disclosure Act during the NDAA conference, but nevertheless we did make important progress. For the first time, the National Archives will gather records from across the federal government on UAPs and have a legal mandate to release those records to the public if appropriate. This is a major, major win for government transparency on UAPs and it gives us a strong foundation for more action in the future.
Speaker 4:I agree, sir, and I think probably the most significant shortcomings that I think we need to visit about as well shortcomings of the conference committee agreement that are now being voted on were the rejection, first of all, of a government-wide review board composed of expert citizens, presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed, to control the process of reviewing the records and recommending to the president what records should be released immediately or postponed, and a requirement, as a transparency measure, for the government to obtain any recovered UAP material or biological remains that may have been provided to private entities in the past and thereby hidden from Congress and the American people. We are lacking oversight opportunities and we are not fulfilling our responsibilities.
Speaker 1:I mean, that's pretty straightforward.
Speaker 2:It's very straightforward. It's just the end of what he said. It's a strange thing to just start talking about on the Senate floor. I mean, I say strange, Chris, you and I have known each other a long time. If when we were kids, if you heard this, we would be like, oh my God, this is crazy because it's just, it's mind blowing yes. And the fact that you can say it now and not be mind blowing yeah Says something. I don't know what it says because it's.
Speaker 1:It's amazing how many people don't internalize any of this Right and if you ask them about it, it's almost like they don't even know most of this stuff took place, any of this right, and if you ask them about it, it's almost like they don't even know most of this stuff took place. I do you know talks about ufos and frequently I will, you know, ask the ask the, you know the attendees and say you know. After I show them clips of the hearings and the press conferences and like the significant things that have happened in the last few bunch of years, and I say how many of you knew about this? And very few do. And I say, well, isn't that interesting?
Speaker 1:Like the major hearing took place that people under oath said some really mind-blowing stuff. Under oath, meaning that if they're lying they go to go to jail. Um, nothing, you know. You know, like why is the media so reluctant? When the media covers this, they still cover it as if, well, we don't know yet, we're not quite sure, and it's never a deep dive. It's never a deep dive. It's never a deep dive because they don't want to, because it's too weird. It's too strange, but anyway, we'll just get to the final end. This is the last part, and then they wrap it up and then we'll go over it.
Speaker 3:Well, I'd like to echo what my friend, senator Rounds, has said today and on many occasions.
Speaker 3:It's essential we keep working on our proposal to create an independent, presidentially appointed review board that can oversee UAP classified records and create a system for releasing them, where appropriate, to the public. Again, as the Senator has said, it's the same method used for the JFK records and it continues to work to this very day. It is really an outrage the House didn't work with us on adopting our proposal for a review board, which, of course, by definition here is bipartisan in the Senate. Now it means that declassification of UAP records will be largely up to the same entities that have blocked, obfuscated their disclosure for decades. We will keep working. I want to assure the American people, senator Rounds and I will keep working to change the status quo. And before I yield finally to him, I'd like to just acknowledge my dear friend, the late Harry Reid, a mentor, who cared about this issue a great deal. So he's looking down and smiling on us, but he's also importuning us to get the rest of this done, which we will do everything we can to make happen.
Speaker 4:I agree with my friend and colleague. To those who think that the citizen review board that would have been created in our UAP Disclosure Act, that it would be unprecedented and somehow would go too far, we note that the proposed review board was very closely modeled on the review board established in the JFK Assassination Records Act of 1992, which has successfully guided the release of records to the American public on another very sensitive matter of high interest to the American people. And it does one more thing that we really need to recognize, and that is that there is, we believe, information and data that has been collected by more than just the Department of Defense, but by other agencies of the federal government as well, and by allowing for an outside, independent collection of these records, we can make progress in terms of dispelling myths and providing accurate information to the American people.
Speaker 3:Again, I thank my colleague and pledge to work with him and other bipartisan colleagues in the future to build upon what we've achieved in the conference report. We encourage our colleagues to join us in the further investigation of this issue and in advancing legislation that will complete what we've accomplished in this NDAA. And I yield the floor.
Speaker 1:So that's, I mean, pretty amazing that that was on the floor of the Senate.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, I mean, they didn't mince words that you know.
Speaker 1:other other agencies are hiding things. They're saying that there is a cadre of people somewhere in the government that is breaking the law by doing these things and keeping it away from Congress, people and senators they're supposed to have oversight.
Speaker 2:I think, chris, that if you spoke to most people, even if you didn't care about this particular topic, right, if you ask them, do you think that American people should have the information? I think most people would say yes, yes, right, yeah. So I really think some of these politicians should be called to the carpet by their constituents because saying no, why you got to answer the question. Why are you saying no to this Right? If you have an actual good reason, I'll listen to it. If you don't, the people that voted for that person should have something to say about it. Because what you're? Saying? No to american people finding information?
Speaker 1:most people are not against that true, um, but again, I think a lot of people still don't think this is real right, right and and so. So they just sort of say they don't even care. They just yes, they should be mad at any of this, like that this legislation is being blocked by certain people, but that happens all the time and you know people are mad about all sorts of legislation getting blocked by either side.
Speaker 1:But when people come back to this they go well, there's nothing to this, so this is all just a waste of time. Then why wouldn't you?
Speaker 1:if there was nothing to something, I'd say open the shades, let's look at it yes and and also, if there's really nothing to this, why are all these big politicians really putting themselves out for this? I mean, that's a like you said 30 years ago if a politician to talk like this, we would have been blown away, they also would not have been a politician for long. No like it, they would have. Like dennis kasinich, found out, once you're associated with the ufo topic doesn't matter what your interaction is, once you're associated with it. He was called all sorts of names in the press and you know that was the end of his end of his run you know right.
Speaker 1:So it's just, it's strange. It's it's weird that we're still at this place where I have to have this conversation with people about if there is something to this, like we're not even to the conversation of what it is. There's still people who like they don't quite believe it. Oh, it's still all nonsense. Are you kidding me? With everything that's going on, you really still think it's nonsense.
Speaker 1:But that's the problem is that a lot of these cases they don't know about these things, and people are often, if they don't know about it, apparently it didn't happen.
Speaker 1:And so when I mentioned to some people, there's almost like this disbelief, like, well, if you're telling the truth and this really was on the floor of the Senate, it doesn't help. And this is the other part of it is that one of the other things that happened towards the end of the year or early this year was the UAP Arrow, which is the all-domain anomaly resolution office that had been opened up by the Pentagon to research these things, put out their historical part, one of their historical report, in which they really echoed a lot of what Project Blue Book did back in the day in pouring cold water on this and really saying that oh, there's not much to this dishonest report and multiple people have come out, you know in the government, and said wait a second. There's some obvious things in this report that don't seem right and it seemed like another attempt to just sort of put this back away and make every and it actually kind of worked in a way, because a lot of media reported on.
Speaker 1:Oh, you know, they had a report come out and they said that you know, this is probably misidentification and and if they had more information they could probably solve all these. And as usual, what they do is they point to a few specific cases and look at this one, this one looks weird, and now we found out it was this. Ah see, it's okay. And in all the hearings and stuff they used to say that the all domain anomaly resolution office didn't care about anything that was explainable, they only cared the anomalous.
Speaker 1:But every time they put out like statements and and things like that, they end up showing us something that appears anomalous but ends up being prosaic and that sort of gives what being like being something common, something they can just say oh you know, this was a plane, this was a, this, this was that, and they did a good job of pouring cold water on it. And Sean Kirkpatrick, who was the head of Arrow, he has left Arrow and, weirdly enough, you know he's gone to work for. He's gone to work for some lab, you know on the defense side or something. You know his he landed in a place that's very interesting as far as career wise, In terms of using some information he might have, or just he made. You know he did. He did the job he was hired to do, which was pour cold water on this and the media is taking the.
Speaker 1:You know a lot of media is taking the bait Not all of it. There's still some media who's going at this and it's just quieted down now because we're in the midst of an election and there's a lot of other things. There's several wars going on out there and there's a lot happening right now, so UAPs have sort of taken a backseat, and you know it's understandable.
Speaker 2:I just don't understand anyone that has the knowledge that there are things being witnessed that can't be explained. Okay, that's that's. There's no denying that, right? Everyone admits that. How many? That's? That's, there's no denying that right, everyone admits that. Um how many? That's up for debate. Um how you would be in in any way, now I could see being indifferent, but in any way somehow against finding out what it might be is weird it's.
Speaker 1:It's weird, but it's also understandable when you think about how this disrupts the worldview.
Speaker 1:I think people underestimate how big a deal this would be if it really became confirmed the disclosure, if the president walked out to a podium and said to the American people, I have something important to tell you. Here's what's going on. You know, there's a non-human life form that is interacting with us, visiting this planet, and I don't know, maybe, maybe we don't know their intentions, we don't know what they're up or, if they do, they're not saying you. I mean, it wouldn't just be like people hear that and go all right and then go back to it. Would it would cause some people? Might, some people would, but it's the next questions, it's the. It's not that. It's the next questions which would start to cause problems.
Speaker 1:Well, how long has this been going on? How long did you know about it? Why was this kept from us? How did you keep this from us? I think that's another thing that people are often not thinking through. If this secret has been kept, if this secret has been kept, crimes have been committed to keep it, witnesses have been committed to keep it, witnesses have been intimidated, maybe witnesses have been killed.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean, you're going a little far there, no, I'm not going a little far.
Speaker 1:It's amazing to think that hasn't happened. If there's a secret that the government doesn't want to get out and they want to keep it secret, they want to keep it under wraps, whatever that secret is. You don't think our government, or any government, would kill to keep something that they considered important under wraps. Of course they would. They do it all the time. They don't. They don't publicize it, but we know it happens, right? I mean, is there anyone out there who doesn't think that intelligence agencies occasionally we see it in movies all the time and we just accept it. Oh, in this movie the cia took out the like. We see it and we go, yeah, that probably happens. But then when you say, well, do you think it actually happened? Well, that's now, that couldn't have happened. Why wouldn't it happen?
Speaker 2:because it's against the law well, I see what you're doing. I mean, it's no.
Speaker 1:No, I'm not arguing it's ridiculous to assume that hasn't happened, and if they've kept the secret under wraps, they've certainly done illegal things. In the very least, they've kept it from congress.
Speaker 2:That alone is is illegal, against the constitution the one thing that I've always thought, though and uh, it doesn't. You know, it's just something that comes into my head uh, with the jfk or maybe now at uap, sometimes you ever wonder as an individual, I want to know exactly what happened with JFK. As an individual, I want to know exactly what's happened with UAPs. As a society, are we better off knowing or not knowing? That's a very philosophical question, but it's kind of interesting. It's an argument to be made, right, because you and I, we know individually, yeah, but the dynamic of our lives in terms of you know how society works, doesn't change. But if everyone has that information, because you know, people act differently in groups than they do individually, right?
Speaker 1:So that's a philosophical question but it's something that I think maybe being considered by people maybe not always nefarious is what I mean no, and I think that that has been discussed about whether there should be disclosure of this, and I mean I think yes for a variety of reasons.
Speaker 1:And later in the show or in the second half, we'll hear some stuff that will towards this, but half we'll hear some stuff that will towards this, but it's it's such a fundamental change that you can understand why if there were people who knew it was going on would be reluctant. Here's this. Here's another question that might come up. Okay, all right, these objects obviously are able to operate in ways that ours. Can. They have access to technology that we don't? Is the government ever going to admit that they recovered some? Well, what have you learned? Is there a power source that we don't know about? I mean, obviously, if these things, calculations were done you know they talk about the Tic Tac and the maneuvers that, the Tic Tac incident in 2004, the maneuvers that that made, and they've done calculations to figure out how much energy would be required to make the maneuvers that were witnessed, that object making and they determined it was more energy than all the nuclear plants on our planet could harness at one time Like the amount of energy is mind-blowing. So, if they have access to that kind of energy, there's two questions, I guess, or two tracks to go on.
Speaker 1:One is if there's that kind of technology out there that exists. Well, are people going to be like oh well, here's this game-changing technology, free energy or whatever it is that could power this planet for 100 years without breaking a sweat, that could power this planet for 100 years without breaking a sweat. Well, I guess I'm going to just hope to keep working my 9-to-5 job and hope that some of that technology gets available on Amazon so I can buy it. You know what I'm saying. There's going to be this question to be like well, what Wait? Are you telling me that oil is not needed, if combustion engines is not the way to go, if there's better power sources that would change life on this planet completely, like if you didn't have to burn fossil fuels anymore to create energy?
Speaker 2:Oh, yeah, that would change everything.
Speaker 1:Now, it would change it in a good way, but for some people that would not be a good way.
Speaker 2:Oil companies wouldn't be happy. It really wouldn't change things in a good way for people that own the rights to the energy.
Speaker 1:Right, of course, if you owned an oil company and your oil company was about to become obsolete because there was this new form of energy that didn't require a melted dinosaur or whatever we're saying oil is. Yeah, that's not very good. And then there's the other part of it. Okay, do you want anyone else on this planet to have access to unlimited power? Because power is power. Like, if you can generate that much power to generate to move a craft, what if you generated that same amount of power to create a bomb, to move a craft? What if you generated that same amount of power to to create a bomb?
Speaker 1:I mean, if you're really tapping into energy and the thought process is that it's gravitational, there's something to be said there about gravity. Um, our science, that's what bob lazar said. He did.
Speaker 1:A lot of this stuff is vindicating bob lazar and, for those who don't know, bob lazar came out in the in the 90s and he claimed to have worked at area 51 and that he, um, you know, was brought in to look at some craft that we recovered reverse engineer, try to reverse engineer it and things that he said was it was gravitational and our, our science, really looked into gravity in the 50s and if you look at what happened, you're led to believe there was, it was a dead end and then all research was was curtailed. But anyone who looks into that gets a visit from our national security. There's something to grab, like there's something to that. So now do you want that energy in the hands of our enemies? Like you can easily see why that would make us nervous, right? I mean, if everybody has to create bombs using the same technology, then we're all kind of on equal footing, you know well, it's one another philosophical way of looking at it is if you had unlimited energy, that was free.
Speaker 2:I don't think any energy is free, all right. And even if you could figure out a way to harness something, you, the technology used to harness, it, costs something yeah, but right, but doesn't mean it costs something.
Speaker 1:If the energy itself is free and all you're paying for is the harnessing of it, that cost would be nominal when, when, spread out well, unless other people could figure out how to do it too.
Speaker 2:Right. But that's the thing. If I'm the one that figured out, you've read about that thing where they think they might have found these Dyson stars right, if you're the one that knows how to figure that out, I mean, not everyone's going to be able to do that. That's something like an Elon Musk could figure out, if it was a real thing, how to do it. So now you got one person, one group owning, so it's, I don't know exactly, but having that kind of energy, let's just say it was free. I don't even know if you need countries anymore, because you're now. No one's fighting over resources, right, maybe you're fighting over water, unless you could figure that out. But if there was, let's say, unlimited heat or electricity or you know a big, this changes everything.
Speaker 1:Like it's. I think it's such a profound change that it's so mind-bogglingly. It changes everything. It puts into question our political system, puts into question our economic system, puts into question our society. You know just everything about how we're doing things.
Speaker 1:This could disrupt it, and so it's obvious why some people would be uncomfortable with this, um, with letting this out. I mean, there's a reason why some people would have decided to say you know what? This is a secret that's best kept from everybody. Um, because you can't tell your friends without telling your enemies. I mean, that's, that's one thing, right? I mean I'm sure they're all worried about other countries getting this technology, and how do you tell the people? But let's take, compare it to nuclear. We know nuclear power exists, we know it's possible. How exactly you do it is kept pretty secret and the materials needed to do it are hard to obtain. So it's not like somebody can just be like oh, I can build a nuclear reactor. I mean you have to have the knowledge to do it and you also have to have the ability and the resources.
Speaker 1:So it could be a similar thing, right? Why can we not know this exists? Yes, I understand you don't want everyone to know how to build a nuclear reactor in their basement. As a matter of fact, I read some article about some guy. I can't remember where this was, but he was caught and he had built himself some little kind of nuclear reactor.
Speaker 1:And he had been powering his house for 20 years or something like that, and they caught him. I don't know the full details of it, but I mean, why couldn't you tell people that the technology is there and it does exist?
Speaker 2:you, we just can't tell you how it works, or is that the problem is, once you know it exists, is it easier to figure out? Well, here's a philosophical question. Right are we? Are we safer with several countries having nuclear power? Are we safe with just one country having nuclear power? So, um, I I would say we're safe with more than one country. Yeah, I think that's pretty much the thought process, right, yeah, if you had one, you'd have an overlord Right right.
Speaker 1:You have to have the multipolar, because that keeps everybody in check, right Is that you hope that those who have nuclear weapons are at least responsible enough to know that there ain't no coming back. If you press that button Right, if it gets to that point, right, if you do it, I can do it Right, and whoever?
Speaker 2:does it first None of us want to do it, nobody's winning.
Speaker 1:It's going to be a game set, match Right.
Speaker 2:Everybody's going to be wiped out equally so the argument that, militarily, it would be beneficial to not have another country with that technology. I get it, but it's very dictatorship sounding to me. It's not something that is, you know, a cooperative in the world. Now you could say, well, we don't want Russia to get it, yeah, but you have it Right.
Speaker 1:So you're not using it.
Speaker 2:So like are you saying that we're just morally superior? It becomes that. It becomes kind of this weird argument and you know that's another piece of it.
Speaker 1:It's not all up to the United States. I mean, the United States is a prime driver of a lot of this stuff, but there are other countries who have information. Yeah, and if either russia or china ever decides to step out first, I would think that that's a, that's a uh consideration, like all right, we don't want to tell people. But what we don't want more is we don't want our enemies to tell people. Do you want the the, you know, the chinese government or the russian government to be like, hey, they announced to the world that the non-human intelligence, they're taking the lead on this. Like we would not want that. Right, we want to be the leader on that. So there's that too.
Speaker 1:Is I almost feel like you can push, you can kick this can down the road a little bit, but you got to be careful, because if you kick it down the road too much, another country might see the benefit of being that leader, and once they step out and they're that leader, it's hard for us to get that back. You want us to be the ones who break it to the world and we're able to keep our friends in check, and there's a reason why UK isn't going out and announcing it. In australia and other countries like that we have some influence, but it's the countries we don't have influence on, like china and russia and some others. What if one of them comes out and says you know, and it's again? It's already kind of starting in a small way. I mean, other countries are starting to have hearings.
Speaker 1:Japan just had some sort of you know, group looking into it, like other governments are starting to talk about it more. So it's coming, it's just it's a slow roll.
Speaker 2:Now keep this in mind, too, when they say that there could be biological remnants, or biological however they word it right. I had sent you that article right. Right now, here on earth, we are putting human tissue on robots, basically, right. So, just because they, it's not out of the realm of possibility that and someone that some civilization that's advanced already knows how to do that right, and so what they're sending here isn't even a real person, right? So to say, well, how could a real person do this? Well, maybe it isn't even a real person, right? Maybe it's a humanoid who knows what it is. But the fact they're talking, yeah, about biologics yeah, I mean 50 years ago.
Speaker 2:It's not something that got spoken about, but you'd laugh at it. What are you talking about right now? Now, wait a minute. My science fiction addiction as a kid is real. Yeah, what are you talking about here? You found biological. You don't just listen. I don't know about you, but most things I've done in my life. I don't get into detail of all these contingencies, of things that are just never going to happen in my head Right right, it just doesn't.
Speaker 1:You don't do this. You don't put a lot of energy into something that's not real. Yes, there seems to be a lot of energy being put into this by people who would know.
Speaker 2:And I mean did anybody ever tell you what Santa Claus's waist size was? Not me, cause it's never been published, right, right, because it's not, it's a fantasy, right, right, right. So you didn't get into the details of his shoe size, right? But this is very detailed.
Speaker 1:Yeah, there's something to be said that they've done such a good job of making this topic laughed at that it's hard to come back from that Like you still fight, that You're still up against that when you know there are still news reports when they bring the subject up, even talking about something serious, the news anchors cannot help themselves but like laughing a little bit and chuckling and feeling uncomfortable talking about this.
Speaker 2:I'd say once in a while it doesn't seem to be as much anymore.
Speaker 1:It's going down.
Speaker 2:Generally, it's more likely than not.
Speaker 1:That's how it is Right and it's just because we're so ingrained with it. This is all nonsense, but people in the know, who are important, seem to be taking this seriously. So we have two choices. We can believe that all of them are delusional or being tricked, or are just stupid and falling for it. Or we can say, all right, if that's not it, what's the only other explanation? There's something to this. Those are the two choices. Either it's all hooey or it's not.
Speaker 1:If it is all made up, then we have a problem, because we have a significant number of people in high positions in our government who are putting a lot of energy into this thing. So if it doesn't exist, what the hell are they doing? And then, of course, if it doesn't exist, what is it? What is the answer? And what has the government been spending all this money on? Because they're spending money on. You know something? They had a UFO task force back in the day. You know that's what the atip was found out to be. You know that they had an organization they were putting money into this. Shouldn't we be concerned if it's?
Speaker 2:if it's not, real, it's got to be something to this right?
Speaker 1:um, and you know, another part of this is so high that there are elements that you can't even talk. If you know about this stuff, you can't come out and say it, and I think that's a big stumbling block too is that they're waiting. I hear a lot of people saying, well, when are they going to shoot? You know somebody to come out and show us the pieces, and it's like you don't realize how secret they're keeping this. I've heard that in some quarters, when this is discussed, they don't even take notes.
Speaker 1:I've heard, actually, um, there was a professor that was making some uh, inroads with like intelligence people, and the intelligence people had said to them that, uh, there's something called pencils down when this topic is discussed in those, in those small cadres of people who know about it, when this topic is discussed, in those small cadres of people who know about it, when this topic is discussed, pencils go down. This is just. We just talk. There's nothing committed to paper, nothing committed to anything that anyone could get their hands on, and that sounds ridiculous. But I mean, a lot of cultures have that oral tradition that used to be very common is that, you know, cultures would pass their thing down with stories. It's a similar thing that they're doing in our government to keep this secret.
Speaker 2:When people right, when they have that. Well, if it was there, why didn't they just show us? Well, we're talking about it right now. Ask yourself why they're not showing you Now so they put it in place for the JFK. Why are they not showing you all the documents?
Speaker 3:There's something that they don't want you to know.
Speaker 2:That's why they're not giving it to you. Now, it could be a good reason, a bad reason and a different reason. Whatever it is, there is a reason they don't want you to know it, and that is a fact. You know it for it's just, there's no denying it. And that is a fact, we know it for the it's just, there's no denying it. There's an act that says they're supposed to do it and there's a provision why they don't have to. They enact that provision on certain documents time and time again. So for you to then for not you, but anyone to then turn around and say well, I mean, if there was a UAP thing, they would just give it. No, I mean, how many times you're going to, how many times you're going to see that that's not the way this works?
Speaker 1:The government never gives out information it doesn't have to. I mean, that's the thing is. Have you ever known the government to be like volunteer information? That would embarrass them, or this is the ultimate embarrassment Again, if if this is true, I firmly believe it is Crimes have been committed, misdeeds have been done. Maybe some of the people who are responsible for those are gone and dead. You can't exact any kind of retribution against them because they're gone, but there's somebody who's kept it going.
Speaker 2:Well, here's a way of looking at it, too, right? I mean, you could say everyone could say everyone's got their own thoughts on, like, what's going on with Israel and Hamas, right? But I'm just using it as an example. I for one think it's difficult to expect a really good negotiation between Israel and Hamas only because most of the major players in the world seem to fall on the side that once this is finished and this can be hopefully resolved sooner than later the situation there. Nobody really wants Hamas to be the leadership in Gaza anymore, right? Except maybe Hamas. So I always wonder how do you expect a negotiation with a group that knows the resolution is their demise, right?
Speaker 1:So in and who else could? If they're the only organization that could conceivably be part of leadership, what are you gonna say? That none of them. Maybe the organization itself, but are you gonna say that none of the people who are in that organization can have anything to do with being the leader? Then you're going to remove all the possible leaders that could help you yeah, why? Would they resolve who is going to negotiate?
Speaker 2:They're not going to Right. So I kind of look at that in terms of governments, because if it is what maybe you and I might think it might could be right, and let's say, you could get unlimited resources, maybe there's a way they could show you, hey, we can desalinate, we can do this with water, you don't have to worry about this. Let's just say that was something right.
Speaker 2:If governments revealed it at some point, there's not going to be that many governments because there's not going to be that much fighting about the stuff. They might be fighting over land and stuff, but maybe I don't know, right. But you're asking entities to reveal information that, at the end of the day, could be their own demise, right? So it's not going to work.
Speaker 1:Right If you're a defense contractor and you have access to this technology and you're using it to develop weapons which is probably what they're doing right which that alone should make entire parts of our society. Who's going to? If you're part of that, if you're part of the little section that's going to get done away with, your incentive is to say, well, let's push this off. Maybe it has to happen at some point, but I'd rather it happen when I'm no longer here, because, but somebody is going to have to pay the bill, right? So we're going to wrap this one up here. It's part one here, because you know I, but you know somebody's gonna have to pay the bill.
Speaker 1:I don't know right, but so we, you know. So let's, we're gonna wrap this one up here. It's part one. When we come back in part two, um, you know, we have more more to say on this. There's some uh specific uh conferences that have happened. There's a lot that's happened recently. I'm gonna play some clips, but we're gonna wrap this up here and we'll come back again. So until uh, until next time. I'm Chris and I'm Steve, and this has been some deep shit. We'll be you next time.
