(Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve
(Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve
(Not So) Deep Sh*t on The UAP Disclosure Act of 2023
Are the powers that be hiding the truth about UFO sightings? And why, with ALL the recent developments on the UFO front, does it seem like few in the media or public seem to care?
Chris and Steve are peeling back the layers of obscurity in mainstream media and interrogating the silence around this phenomenon. Is it public disinterest or a deliberate information blockade?
Prepare to have your thoughts on hierarchy upended as Chris and Steve explore the plausible existence of non-human intelligence. Undeniably, this could dethrone us from our lofty pedestal at the top of the species pyramid. Does mankind's destructive power makes us superior or just deadly. To add an exciting twist, we'll play with the idea that humanity might be extraterrestrial in origin. That's some pretty deep shit, right there!
At the threshold of a congressional hearing on unidentified aerial phenomena, Chris and Steve contemplate what a groundbreaking revelation could mean. They discuss how the Pentagon's intimidation tactics against potential witnesses could reshape the narrative, and the implications of a recognized 'higher power' on military industrial complexes.
So get ready for an insightful journey into the intriguing world of UFOs and non-human intelligence. The truth is out there, and (Not So) Deep Shit with Chris and Steve is hell-bent on finding it.
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. All right, so you were saying, before we actually begin recording, that you were saying yes, I agree with you. It's. It's disheartening how no one seems to care.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:But I will tell you what I think is the reason for it. The main media has not really carried it yet. News Nation has carried it a lot, some newspapers have carried it, but generally speaking TV news has not touched it. Every now and then they'll have a story, but they certainly don't let people know the full scope of what's going on. There's an interesting way of looking at that Right One is.
Speaker 2:I agree with you that they're not carrying it. That's very obvious.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:The second one I always, I always, wonder when people will say well, that's because the media.
Speaker 2:That's because the media Right. Well, I've always looked at it that the media gives people what they want, right, they know what's going to sell, they know what people are going to tune in for and the fact they're not carrying it to me maybe indicates they have an indication that the public isn't interested. Like there's two ways of looking at it. One is we're only fed what we're fed by the media. The other let me just probably more than two ways.
Speaker 1:The other way, of looking at it is the media feeds us what we want.
Speaker 1:I think. I think that argument can kind of be taken down by just the fact that News Nation is seeing the highest ratings that ever has ever. Why? Because it's a niche. But what I'm saying is there's an interest in this topic, right, certain Congress people have said that they're surprised at Comer, who is the house. He's high up there, he's in charge of the committee that's going to be running these hearings and he's, he's, he's the big guy anyway in that, in that context, and so he wasn't really a UFO guy. And they asked him a question about it and he said well, you know, we're going to have hearings and I put some people in charge of that. He said I've been very surprised at the interest in this topic. The American people want to know. So there's a disconnect between what you know.
Speaker 1:Somebody could make that argument and say, well, the media is not covering it, which means it's not of interest to the people. But if the people don't know about something, how are they going to know whether it's of interest to them or not? And I think it's not. It's not that people don't, it's not that people have heard everything that's going on and said I don't care and moved on. Cause if that was the case, great. The problem is, most people don't even know to the extent that when I do these presentations in front of people and I say you know, I show them, I show them government getting involved. I'm going to do more of that. But when you put that in front of people, there's a moment when you can see it happen individually. I've seen it happen to a couple of people where you can just you can just tell the wall came down a little bit and there's a look on their face for just a second where they're just trying to take it in Cause. This is a topic that we've all been trained to treat as a joke.
Speaker 2:Well, yeah, I mean, the more this happens, it opens itself up to that. There's another conspiracy theory about all this right Project Bluebeam.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:Right, and it's. It's like playing into the hands of those people. Yeah.
Speaker 1:They're always going to say that, though, and you know what? Two things can be true, and this, this goes back to these two things could this goes back to a fundamental thing actually.
Speaker 1:Yes, indeed, project Bluebeam cannot be true if, if there are aspects of it, though, could be the idea of faking an invasion, the idea of using it as a threat narrative. I think a lot of this comes down to our binary nature, that we really need things black and white, this or that. It's good or it's bad, and I know I know Luis Elizondo and some of his interviews that I'd listened to talks about this, and it's so true. It's either real or the government's using it to scare us this, that or the other thing. Both of those could be true. There could be an aspect of it that's real. There could be an aspect of it where they say, well, let's use it as a threat narrative. You know, the things flying around in our sky are either from someone else, not us, or there are top secret technology either, or they're probably a little bit of both. There's probably things flying around out there that people have seen and reported as UFOs, but actually are our secret tech. We kind of know that because past ones were reported Like there's probably that going on as well, and I think everyone you know puts it in this frame of reference of it's either this or that. So if it's this, then we just discount that off the table, and it's just our nature, it's our habit. Watch yourself, how much do you do that? I watch myself and I'm doing, I do it again, I just did it again. I just did it again where I just I had to take it to the extremes, not realizing that if it's somewhere in the middle, both can be right. But instead those two sides are arguing about which one is wrong and which one is right, when really, if they thought about it, they could say you know, we're both kind of right to different degrees. And this is another one of those aspects where there's something to this tumor. You know, big name senator, you know that's as high as you get up there in the in the hierarchy of the Senate he would not be backing language like this unless he knew that this language was necessary to do what it needed to do.
Speaker 1:They don't put legislation legislation like this. First of all, this was not just cranked out overnight. They've been working on this Like there's a background to this From those of us who watch UFOs. From our perspective, it's all been quiet for a real long time, even though some of those people who are in the know have said their stuff going on behind the scenes, guys, we can't say what it is, but the wheels are turning, but to a lot of people on this topic who follow it, nothing was going on, because we've not heard anything. And then this legislation drops. This legislation is startling in what it says specifically. First of all, it's called the unidentified anomalous phenomena disclosure act of 2023. They're calling it disclosure act. It has words like non-human entities.
Speaker 1:This legislation is the Senate's version of what's going on, the National Defense Authorization Act. So that's we've talked about that before basically the National Defense Authorization Act. Every year they have to vote this thing. The House does a version of it, the Senate does a version of it, and then they put their heads together and between those two versions, a committee will bang out the actual version and then it gets voted on and then the president signs it and that gives the intelligence agency. That sort of sets the course for the Pentagon intelligence agencies basically to say there's an intelligence authorization act. So this one, the defense authorization act, is more like defense Pentagon, this is what you're gonna do. This is what you're gonna spend money on. Here are some initiatives, things like that. All their money is appropriated in this. This thing is what gives the Pentagon their next year of funding.
Speaker 2:So this is what is this something? Is this something that gets written every year?
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:All right, so it gets written every year. Is it different every year?
Speaker 1:Yes, it's a different set of priorities, although it's worth pointing out that since 20, I think the 2021, every year there's been some UAP legislation in this Defense.
Speaker 2:Authorization Act? Has there been anything like what's being?
Speaker 1:written right now. Well, this is where the whistleblower laws came in. The last time alone, everything has been a huge incremental change. I think the first one was the one hey, we're setting up an agency in the Pentagon again to look at this, and that's where AIMSOG and then Arrow essentially came from.
Speaker 2:the Defense Authorization Act of saying and in that act a couple of years ago. It was written in there. They had to have hearing so often.
Speaker 1:Yes, yes, so this is all that. That kind of put that in motion. So this is a major thing. Now, big names have been attached with various UAP things before Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator of New York, and Marco Rubio of Florida, but Chuck Schumer is like the next. He's been, he's very senior.
Speaker 1:He's very senior, so the fact that he's backing he put his name on this legislation with them and it's called the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act. So some interesting aspects of it and I just wanna kind of quickly go through it and why do you think it's called that Is?
Speaker 2:there anything in there that gives rise to why it's called that.
Speaker 1:All federal government records related to unidentified anomalous phenomena should be preserved and centralized for historical reference. So first of all, it's saying any records we have on this right. It's saying all records should carry a presumption of immediate disclosure and all records should be eventually disclosed to enable the public to become fully informed about the history of the federal government's knowledge and involvement surrounding unidentified anomalous phenomena.
Speaker 2:Does this mean going forward or in back? Going back?
Speaker 1:Retroactive Retroactively All federal government records.
Speaker 2:They had something like this before.
Speaker 1:They've moved the ball forward, asking Arrow to go back to 1945 and put together a comprehensive report, which they are working on. But Arrow as an organization just got fully funded, like a month or so ago. So that's the problem is, since Arrow got formed in the Pentagon, they've been kind of hamstrung by the Pentagon Not giving them access, not giving them funding. Not, oh, you didn't specifically say Arrow needs money, so we're not really gonna give them their budget this year and so for the first year. So they've been very hard for them to do what they've been doing because they haven't had a budget or a staff. They've had a few.
Speaker 2:I think at one point there was like three people in the office or something like that, but it wasn't written into the act how much they're supposed to be receiving.
Speaker 1:Not explicitly A lot of these things.
Speaker 2:You think that was done on purpose.
Speaker 1:No, it's just what they could get through at the time. Every authorization act has here, we're gonna set this up and then you gotta give a time to. You can't put too much in, because you can only put so much on their plate. They probably only had so much they could do. So each time they did it it was like here's an incremental change, here's the, here's the here's Arrow, here's what their mandate is, and that was to go back to do it. So this is now saying all documents should be presumed that we're gonna release it. Basically the same legislation. Further legislation is gonna be necessary to create enforceable, independent, accountable processes for public disclosure.
Speaker 2:All right. So right now it's saying to do it, but there's not a lot of teeth to make anyone do it Right, and so it's please do it.
Speaker 1:It is, and it's a lot's left up to.
Speaker 2:there's been no concentrated effort towards getting stuff released and the government let's just say you think it's more ceremonial writing that kind of stuff. If there's no enforcement of it, I don't know Well.
Speaker 1:Further, they say legislation is necessary, which means these are their kind of findings declarations. This is the first part of the bill where they're talking about their findings declarations and purposes basically. So they're just kind of putting it on the table. We're gonna need legislation. Let's see. They just talk about restoring proper oversight. So there's a lot here. So definitions. So here are some of the titles they're defining in this legislation Archivist.
Speaker 1:The archivist means the archivist of the United States. Let's see Close observer. The term close observer means anyone who has come into close proximity to unidentified anomalous phenomena, are non-human intelligence. That is on page four of this legislation and where they say we're going to be in our definitions, we're going to be referring to something called the close observer and we define close observer as somebody who's come into close proximity to unidentified anomalous phenomenon or non-human intelligence. Find me another time when the term non-human intelligence is included in a piece of Senate legislation Like that alone should be making the press making the mainstream press stand up and just at least go. Huh, that's weird. Why would you put this in?
Speaker 2:there.
Speaker 1:Unless you have a reason to believe that. I mean, I don't think any legislation is put through without a specific reason, like the process of legislation is a long and grueling process, it's what it's not done lightly.
Speaker 2:They didn't put that phrase in there accidentally. But I think we're going to see outside of even this kind of realm, we're going to see a lot more of that going forward with artificial intelligence. Because I don't know exactly how they're going to phrase it. They might phrase it like that Non-human intelligence.
Speaker 1:That's really interesting. Yes, non-human intelligence can also be, and, yeah, artificial intelligence, which also one could say that maybe this is why all this. I've heard people say, why now? Well, you know what the public's kind of getting used to the idea of an intelligence that isn't us. And we took it more or less so far. Pretty well, so maybe that. So let's get back to the definitions, because some of these definitions, so the other thing they want to define is, what do they mean by non-human intelligence? Right?
Speaker 2:okay.
Speaker 1:The term non-human intelligence means any sentient, intelligent, non-human life form, regardless of nature or ultimate origin, that may be presumed responsible for unidentified anomalous phenomena or of which the federal government has become aware.
Speaker 2:It's an interesting definition In many ways. One is the word sentient. Even his consciousness really has never even fully been defined, but I think we have an understanding what they mean by sentient, you know? Yeah, Kind of like what we all believe to be.
Speaker 1:We believe we are right and we believe now.
Speaker 2:I think now we know that animals are, it was maybe it's kind of right maybe a couple hundred years ago, people didn't think animals were yeah. Right, maybe more than that, but there was a time that we did not believe animals were sentient, and now most people do believe they are they do, and then they also conveniently ignore it when it's inconvenient to consider ramifications of some sentient creatures.
Speaker 1:I'll tell you one food now that I have eaten in the past and I just kind of I just can't do it anymore if for the most part it is octopus because they're intelligent. I mean way more than intelligent you know it would be. It feels akin to like to like eating dolphin, kind of thing Like.
Speaker 2:Isn't it interesting, though, how we decide based on it almost goes out of that pulp fiction. Have you seen pulp fiction?
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:That whole discussion about personality. We decide which animals are worthy based on our subjective belief on their personality or intelligence, and their cuteness.
Speaker 1:Really really it boils down to how cute it is right.
Speaker 2:I can't see myself eating an octopus.
Speaker 1:We're not saying anything against that at all, I don't.
Speaker 2:But you know, chickens, I don't think they're as smart, so after them, I'm going to eat them. It's, but that's the way we all are.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And right, and so that's sometimes why I say I don't think we should think anything different if there is another sentient being that they might think the same way about us. You're not smart enough for you are.
Speaker 1:This really goes back to when I say that I don't think everyone has really thought through the implications of all this not, you know, being interacted with by a non-human intelligence, I don't think people have really reconciled with if that is true, let's say for the moment that that is established as truth the fundamental change in our position of the hierarchy to which previously we enjoyed the top spot, where at the top everything else is some level below us and we decide their fates. We decide, humans decide whether this animal is companionship or food. We decide, you know, we decide everything about the life forms beneath us and no one decides for us because we're at the top of that chart. Now something comes along and it's confirmed. We move down, possibly a slot, maybe a bunch of slots, what that does to our psyche. Then one has to start saying what if one of them decides where, on the food category as opposed to the or the pet category? That you know, when we start thinking about being put in these boxes, that we put lower life forms in, it gets a little scary, and that you know, I've heard people say well, if this is true, why not?
Speaker 1:What's the big deal? It's one of the stupidest questions I've heard about letting the public know, like I've heard so many reporters, just kind of like it's a stupid question. It's like well, if the government knows about aliens, why would they keep such a thing secret? And you know my reply to that would be are you fucking kidding? Of course they would want to keep that secret because our whole identity as a people is based on what we've been telling ourselves for the past. I don't know how long is that. We're the only life in the galaxy, as stupid as that is.
Speaker 2:What do you mean? Like what do you when you say that I'm not disagreeing because I think you're right, but like, so where are you thinking that the issue would come from us? Thinking there was someone or something more I wouldn't say necessarily more powerful. I guess it matters how you describe the word powerful, right, because we are the top of the food chain here on this planet, but we are in the sense of power, in terms of strength, we're not the most powerful on the planet.
Speaker 2:We just happen to be the shrewdest. We happen to be the animal that figured out how to use tools, and so we were able to be. We're the most cunning, right, we've figured things out better than any other animal, but went on more powerful than a great white shark, went on more powerful than an elephant, in that sense. But I think that the power of intelligence, if there was something higher than us, they would be figure things out. We couldn't, so we would be right and we'd be knocked down. But what is it you think that about us as a people would be disrupted in our lives. Knowing that, because I don't disagree with you, I'm just interested in what you think.
Speaker 1:Well, first of all, when I say us, I mean us collectively because you're right individually. Yes, individually, any one of us could be stepped on by an elephant or eaten by a great white shark. But when I say I mean collectively, human. Humans collectively are the most powerful thing on the planet.
Speaker 2:Oh right, but it's because of our brain.
Speaker 1:Yes, yes, and because of our technology, because of a lot of things, but we are the only species on this planet that could actually have an effect on the planet itself. No other species could actually do something that could have destroyed the planet, whereas humans could.
Speaker 2:Some people could say maybe that's evidence that we don't. We're actually from aliens, Because if a planet is supposed to be symbiotic and everything's supposed to work with each other, we're the only species of animal or plant or whatever on this planet that kind of doesn't work well with everything else.
Speaker 1:Well, we don't work well with ourselves, which is weird. So back to your question of what it is that our whole identity as a people has been based off of a couple of tenants. One is that and we've talked about this in other episodes the mistaken belief that history started with us and has progressed along a very steady upward trajectory to us. Now we started, you know, you know the story, you know, some thousands of years ago we had been, as a people, inexplicably wandering. You know, instead of settling down roots. We have existed for like 197,000 years as a people, but we just I don't know some couldn't get our shit together. But let's say that that's true, even though that doesn't sound quite right. But a couple of thousand years ago, suddenly we said you know what? Planting food is a good idea, and from there-.
Speaker 2:And also, let's come up with language. We did all of it just right away.
Speaker 1:Right, we did it all in an evening.
Speaker 2:Like one day planting and and wanna build a city and build a civilization from scratch.
Speaker 1:But let's just say let's say they happen that way. See, that's yeah, but that's our story, right. It started there cities, civilizations, wars, technological advancements, and now we are where we are. We're about to step into the stars. But throughout this whole story we have been the main players, to the point where at one point, we thought the entire theater was built specifically for us in the little play that we're putting on.
Speaker 2:Like you mean that we're the only life form in the world.
Speaker 1:Which has been traditionally. If you take our timeframe as a society, that has been the prevalent belief for most of it, the. Even the concept that we aren't alone, even the concept that there was life out there somewhere, has not been really in the public view until the last couple of years.
Speaker 2:Well, most origin stories of all civilizations counter that. But then there must have been a time along the way that that got forgotten, Right?
Speaker 1:Yeah, they free, but it's a something that's been there from the beginning, but we just put our own story on it. The story is us, it's all about us, where, if you really think about it, we've been around by our own accounting, as a people, in such a small timeframe. That would be like building an entire city and then, within that city, which is completely empty, building a theater, and during that theater, like at one point for a couple of weeks, you're gonna have this show running and then after that show, well, everything, just you know, we just leave it, and that's ridiculous. It doesn't work that way. We're part of a larger thing, but in our own story to ourselves, it's how we identify as a people.
Speaker 2:It just is Well, I think the history of even how the earth was formed and how life forms were formed you're right, it all gets to the pinnacle of us. Right. We are the ultimate endpoint of all that led to it.
Speaker 1:You're right and it's a point of pride for us. And now to have that knock down, but not just knock down. We're not talking about the shock of hey, we're the center of the solar system, oh, no, we're not. Oh, we're not. No, the sun is weak. We were oh, okay. All right. Oh, I guess we're not the center, but we're still pretty damn important. You know, like that was considered a huge adjustment to our thinking. That pales in comparison to what potentially we would have to reconcile with.
Speaker 2:What do you think would happen to people's psyche? What do you think? I don't know why do you think it would be something that's hidden from us? If it's in fact, well, it's a destabilizing agent?
Speaker 1:It cannot.
Speaker 2:How so, like, how so.
Speaker 1:Let's just take the basics right. Let's say that this was something that our government discovered back in 1945. Let's just say that that's when our government first became aware of it. Right, there's a lot of evidence that happened a lot sooner. But let's just start with that, the documents that have been found in the archives and things, and this can be backed up in a variety of ways.
Speaker 1:They were concerned about UFO sightings because of the Cold War. Right, you know, after World War II, all of a sudden now we're in a Cold War with the Soviet Union and tensions are high. The government did not wanna muddy the waters with whatever was flying around. So they had a big kind of decision to say we need to figure out a way to get this public to stop talking about this and just leave it alone. And that's kinda how they started on this thing. So then it was a security concern. We don't want to reveal this to the public because there's a real legitimate security threat that we're facing and this would muddy the waters.
Speaker 1:So in the beginning you could make an argument that the coverup was for our own good, and then let's move a little bit more down the path. It's always gonna be a destabilizing agent. Because as soon as you tell people, hey, are there, these vehicles that fly? Unlike anything that we can do, they can do things that we can't. Therefore, they have technology far beyond us. They're more advanced. Okay, Human knowledge. What has happened every time a advanced civilization on Earth has encountered a less advanced civilization? Well, we know every time, every single time, it has not gone well for the less advanced.
Speaker 2:It never has, Never has in the history of when we say it's not going well, it's going very badly.
Speaker 1:Yes, yes, I was, yeah, I was understating it quite a lot. But it is. So now we're the less advanced, okay, so what does that do? Okay, there's technology now that can power everything, forever, potentially. Then what the fuck am I going to work every day for?
Speaker 2:Do you know what I'm saying? Well, I mean, there's other reasons to go to work.
Speaker 1:There are, but what I'm saying is is that our entire subsistence model, of what of how we live, is breaking down on a variety of fronts all at once, and this is just one of the ways, but it's breaking down some other ways too, where we're going to really have to reconcile with what we are and what our purpose is, because I think up till now our purpose has been just to consume, produce and consume.
Speaker 2:Well, I don't think that's going to change.
Speaker 1:I think it's going to have to because I think the world is changing, where you can still produce and consume. But if you make that the focus, if you make that the thing, it's breaking down on such a variety of fronts that I just you know.
Speaker 2:I think that I agree with you, but the only thing I think I differ with you on is I don't think that people learning let's just say they learned that in fact, what's being seen, the UAPs are from a non-human intelligence, right? Let's just say we were told that and it's unequivocal that that's the case Number one. You'd have an argument if that's true or not. If we're being like people do with coronavirus, with everything, right, oh yes yes. So just beyond that though.
Speaker 1:Right, that's hurdle number one.
Speaker 2:That's hurdle number one. So you're going to have at least at least 40 to 50% of the country arguing with each other, right? No, I mean 40 to 50% arguing with the other 40.
Speaker 1:Not believing it? Yeah, refusing to believe People not caring.
Speaker 2:40, 40, 20 maybe, right, I don't know how it would work out, right, but you'd have different factions of people. But I think the inflection point, if you want to use it, would be if and so I agree that what things would happen would happen, but I just think there would be a different time. That it would happen is if, whatever that intelligence was exerted its power in some example, right, then people would be shaken to their core, but only then. I just listen. I was at Mission Impossible Friday night, right, big, I will tell you it was a fantastic action movie.
Speaker 1:Oh, I bet.
Speaker 2:It was fantastic. It was so good that I was no, I didn't go to the bathroom, right, but when I realized it was kind of near the end, cause it was part one this is the second part.
Speaker 1:Really, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:It's part, whatever it was called dead something. But this isn't a movie review, but I will tell you what it was one of the best action movies I've ever seen, I get it Candice and Tom Cruise.
Speaker 1:I mean the fact that he, the man, knows how to make movies and he does stunts and he pushes limits, and it's not CGI. Somebody's really doing that usually, tom. And you gotta give it to him.
Speaker 2:I mean, he's a crazy little guy. But I gotta give him this.
Speaker 2:Yeah, say what you want about his personal life, the way he makes movies I enjoy and they're the reason to go to the movies. But to my point I eventually couldn't hold it anymore. So I got up and I went to the bathroom and I was in the. I went to a cinema. It's called XD. It's actually a little bit bigger than an IMAX, right, so it's a big theater. I'm coming back. It's near the end of the movie, chris. Half, maybe a little less than half of the theater goers were on their phones. I just have this. I don't have this faith that people care about things. They don't even care about the movie they paid for.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:You know, it's just so. I think that until you grab someone by the shoulders and shake them, they're not gonna get to that point. I think that they will. I just don't know if they will just by learning, Cause I think a lot of people there are a lot of people that say, well, yeah, what do you think that is that? Of course that's some thing. We're not alone in the universe. But once that thing shows you, just like anything else, once you realize what you're up against, oh my God. So I think that we think the same things. I just think it might happen at different points. I hope, hopefully, that never happens.
Speaker 1:You're right, there is an inflection point. But let's take it a step further. Okay, If you're right, if they start exerting influence on us, that's when a lot of people their hackles will rise. But what if you find out they already did? What if-.
Speaker 2:Well then, that might be the same scenario.
Speaker 1:What if the answer to the Fermi you know the Fermi paradox right, if the universe is teeming with life, where are they kind of thing right? Which is, I don't?
Speaker 2:know why that's it's difficult.
Speaker 1:I don't know why. That's always like touted as like this Well, this guy's got a great thinker. It's like, well, if there, it's all out there, where is it? And again, that shows human arrogance, as if hey, if it was out there we'd see it, cause we're the best and of course we'd see it. And then you say, okay, how about this first story? It's out there. It doesn't want you to see it, so you don't see it, because you are akin to Let me you know-, but the only-.
Speaker 1:You enjoy your analogies. Can I give you a good analogy?
Speaker 2:Yes, please, please.
Speaker 1:Let's say you discover there's something living in your yard, there is a colony of small creatures living in your yard and you cannot kill them. But you also can't have them running havoc in your yard because, well, in looking at them a little bit, they tend to be a little destructive, they're not good for their own environment. So you don't want to let them out into the yard proper, but you also don't want to just wipe them out because that's a possibility. But you say you know what, If they could be socialized in order to be able to let them out in the larger yard and they're not gonna fuck up my yard? Let's see if we can do that over time. But the first thing I'm gonna do is I'm gonna isolate them. I'm gonna make sure that they can't escape their little when they are is where they are and that's fine. I'm also going to see if, over time, I can exert some subtle influence to try to get them to behave in a way that is more conducive for me taking off the barriers and letting them out into the larger yard. And to me that's what's going on here is that any species or life form that is far more advanced than us I don't think we can conceive in the ways that that advancement shows itself, and I think we typically, in very linear fashion, take what we have and extrapolate it forward. Which is why, when you go back to the 80s or the 70s or the 60s, any movie that showed, or fiction that showed, what the future would look like, always miss something obvious, because all they did was take existing technologies and advance them. We have cars, we have flying cars, we have whatever it is. It's a little bit more advanced, but nobody says, well, a device is gonna come along, that is gonna be our phone, is gonna be our life, is gonna be our connection to everyone else. Like, nobody saw that one because we don't know what we don't know.
Speaker 1:So back to my point. We say a technologically advanced, they're gonna be more advanced from us. What does that mean? That probably means that A they can either be seen Like be seen like float over our cities or not be seen at all. But for some reason, for the last bunch of years they're kind of seen. Okay, that's weird. You'd think that if they were as powerful as they are, they could come and go and we would never even know it. And sometimes that is the case, but other times we see him. Now. Some of that is because our technology has gotten better. But what if? Well, there's been.
Speaker 2:I mean is this history that? Yeah, but what if we're that creature in?
Speaker 1:the yard. So well, we are being isolated, we are being tricked into saying there's nothing out there, just us. Okay, let's concentrate on us, then there's nothing out there.
Speaker 2:And for the longest time say the creatures that you're describing don't see us.
Speaker 1:I'm no, I'm saying is that Our arrogance of the Fermi paradox?
Speaker 2:if they're out there, why haven't we detected them?
Speaker 1:You know you know why we haven't detected them? Because they don't want us to. Well, here's an example we're. They're showing themselves to us and saying Once you as a people can figure out what we are, reconcile it and be okay with it and and not be little, little angry monkeys flinging nuclear poo at each other, then we'll take the barrier off and then we'll let your species out into the universe. But there was, there was just an article the other day that they up the number of exoplanets, basically saying there's like 5 000 exoplanets, meaning planets that they think has a very good chance of supporting life very similar to us, very similar ours.
Speaker 1:The numbers are just launching and from zero to where it's at now and a lot of Not a not a very long period of time and anyone who's like looks at the numbers of that and says once there's one, there's infinite. Basically, with the size of the universe and the age of the universe, once you admit to there being one thing that's not us, suddenly the gates open up and there's potentially Millions upon millions upon millions of things that aren't an example, and I think it might be a little more dire than your the way you described it.
Speaker 2:For Hundreds and hundreds of years there were silverback gorillas in Africa.
Speaker 1:Yes, right.
Speaker 2:They were legends from the bushmen that they were there. Nobody really believed. Nobody that wasn't from there believed that they existed. Right, but In order for there to be bushmen or natives or however you want us to describe it that knew they were there, they had to have seen them. That means there's a good chance. The gorillas saw that, saw the people, right, right. The gorillas didn't know who was visiting them. The gorillas had no idea. They just realized what was. Who was that? I don't know. Let's go hide somewhere else. That's basically their thought, right?
Speaker 2:The only time they ever realized they were dealing with a force Stronger than them, it was when they were putting a zoo. So the time comes that a force could show itself as being superior to you, it might be too late, right, right, and you see something. The gorillas saw something they had no idea, right, right. So we could be seeing something and just go what is that? But then there's a point that comes it. It could be bad, right, because I'm sure the gorilla that's sitting in the zoo, they could be well taken care of. It's not the same as sitting in the jungle, right, right.
Speaker 1:It's that, it's that distinction, that Uh.
Speaker 2:I've heard yeah.
Speaker 1:I've heard people say that if these things could destroy us tomorrow, if they turn their eye towards us and said you know what? These, these, this life form, this, these, this earth Uh, these people on it are not worth, not worth saving, they just suck, um, they could wipe us out tomorrow. They probably could wipe us out in a way that would preserve the earth too. They probably could do it in such a way that like but you know real estate's good location, location, location. We want to keep it, um, but we don't Want the people. We could do that.
Speaker 2:Biologically. But you think about like, like, I was thinking orangutans. Right, they're, their um Habitats continue to dwindle. There's something called they harvest, if a palm oil or something like that, I can't remember, I saw something about it. Um, now they don't go in. We don't go in and just destroy Everything that orangutans have, but, little by little, we do because we've decided to do it. We're superior. Yeah, so if a superior Uh intelligence was looking at the earth like that, well, maybe it happens over time. Maybe it doesn't happen all at once, who knows? I mean, which is very arrogant to think that there is another force that wouldn't do the same thing to us that we do the other things right now.
Speaker 1:Now there's another, another direction. This can go in, though. What if the answer to that, the answer to that question, is all right, we're not the greatest. They're more powerful than us. They could wipe us out. Why haven't they? Maybe? What if the answer to that is because they were responsible for us being us in the first place?
Speaker 2:That's it right? Oh, but well, we don't wipe out. We don't wipe out. Um, certainly she's here on purpose, right?
Speaker 1:and certainly not anything we create, right? Not that we've created a lot, but I'm just saying not that we've created species, but I'm saying that, were we to create something, we created it for a reason. There are questions as to why humans, at a certain point, there was that you know that that link, that leap, there was that change in our Brain or our bodies. There was that there was a train, there was a change somewhere that made us kind of Uncivilized, meaning like cave people kind of thing, like there was something that happened that opened up our mind to the possibilities you could see in the cave paintings they talk about it. I mean, there's evidence that it has a lot to do with psychedelics believe it or not.
Speaker 2:This is why we're gonna do eventually, we're gonna do a whole episode on that anunnaki.
Speaker 1:Yes, yes, there's a lot, there's a lot to talk about on on that and it's, some say, relevant to what we're going to now but but yeah, we've, we've drifted off the point just that, which is fine, but uh, it's.
Speaker 1:That's why I say people gonna have a rough time, because If the answer is we are that Species in the yard that's being sequestered, what does that do for our self-esteem, you know? All of a sudden it's like you know, not only, not only do we have, we as the um, the, whatever this non-human intelligence Intelligences too, by the way is a lot of times it's, it's pluralized, like if we're thinking it's just one. The rule is is once there's one, that's probably infinite. And if you just go into ufo lore and look at the different descriptions, they vary so much that we are not just gonna have to get used to the idea of A thing that's out there besides us that's more advanced than us. We're probably gonna have to get used to the idea of a bunch of things and they could have different competing.
Speaker 1:Yes types of Needs or wants, or in the same way that the native people of the americas, when they looked out and saw the various ships, in their minds it was, you know, it was one thing that was common, right, but from the other side's perspective, was it the Dutch? Was it the French, was it? Was it the spanish, was it? You know, there were a bunch of different countries that were poking around on north america and causing, you know, problems for the inhabitants, but to the inhabitants they were all just invaders. So that's the same thing. So it's.
Speaker 1:It's that all of a sudden, we're not just knocked one peg down. Potentially, we're knocked so far down that we're as far down the list as A. You know what's a, what's a? Really, I don't want to insult any life form, but let's just take a. You know, on the hierarchy of where we're at, humans are at a certain level and Field mice are on a certain level. What if whatever comes above us pushes us down? So there's the same distance between us and them and us and field mice. I'm just, that's just an example, I pulled it, but I'm just saying what does that do for us? That's why I Not everyone is deep thinkers, not everyone thinks like this, and you're right, some people would just go all right.
Speaker 1:But at a certain point people are gonna start to ask the questions, particularly the the more inquisitive and bright among us are gonna start asking questions, and those questions Are gonna make even the people who wouldn't think of those questions themselves go yeah, what about that? We're we're nearing a point I don't know when. That point is that the press cannot Ignore this topic like they have. They've been able, they've had the luxury of ignoring it because the people who are into it are into it, the general public. They care, but they don't care enough To go seek it out. But it's when it's delivered to them. They're interested, but they're not clamoring for it yet.
Speaker 2:How do you think you get out of that cycle though, because this gets us out of that cycle.
Speaker 1:How do people?
Speaker 2:hear about it. If the news doesn't carry it, they're gonna have to at some point.
Speaker 1:At some point, enough happens when you start to say why are we not covering this? Especially when you look at what they are covering and say, okay, well, you're doing an entire Stories on these things. This, marco Rubio was questioned by Ed on Fox. What the hell is his name.
Speaker 1:Oh, sean Hannity right, and I saw the clip where he was. Just like you know, there's been a lot of talk of UFOs. This is a far out question. Again, he had to put that clarification on it. If you're talking about UFOs, we have to, we have to put the disclaimer on it that this is a crazy far out topic. This is a crazy far out topic. But he said that he said should is this? You know, is there anything to this? Basically?
Speaker 1:And Marco Rubio goes well, we don't know yet, but we're. We're investigating serious claims from highly Credentialed people. And he said there's one of two things going on here. If this is true, it is the biggest story in all human history. And he said that. And he said the other possibility is these people are lying and they're crazy. That is a big story as well, because they're in very high positions of power still. So that was what he set, that marker. Now, where Sean Hannity takes it from there, I don't know. But at what point does someone in the press Say, well, it's starting, but, like the majority, when do they say, wait, hold on. That's a huge. That's a senator with presidential ambitions. So is Kirsten Gillibrand.
Speaker 1:So you know those two like they are talking, Chuck Schumer, like they are talking about this seriously, taking it seriously. But do you think?
Speaker 2:that with Mark Rubio saying that on, call that national news, right? Do you think that something will come from just him saying that? Because it's honestly it should.
Speaker 1:It should, but there's already been a dozen such things that should have you just the things that have been said to sort of blasé. I don't know that. If you pointed out some, if you pointed out to most people that the term non-human intelligence appears in this, this legislation, like 25 times, they don't just say it once it's listed 25 or something like that, 20 something times they use the phrase non-human intelligence, Like at what point do people stop and go? This is being taken seriously. I know I've been trained throughout my entire life to laugh at this and reject this and ridicule this, but now there's been a switch and this is being taken so seriously by serious people that it all adds to it. It's at some point and it's gonna be soon there's gonna be enough information out there that the news stations are gonna have to start reporting it and then they'll see there's an interest in it. And at that point I'm hearing anecdotally that there are many reporters who are interested, many who are interested, and in a lot of these quarters that the editors are just saying nope, nope, we're not covering that yet, no, we're not coming out. Now you have to ask yourself why are they saying that?
Speaker 1:It could just be still well-trained from the ridicule that's UFO's silly topic. Even with everything going on, the brainwashing of people to consider anything UFOs to be ridiculous, that runs deep. You still see it. You see it every time it's mentioned. Among people who don't follow the topic there's still giggles, Even if they're saying, yeah, I've seen stuff on the news that's crazy, right, but they still giggle Because it's so well-trained. Or one could say some of these news organizations, somebody at the Pentagon has just said to them don't pay any attention to this stuff, it's all garbage. Hey, we got a good scoop on a new weapon we're rolling out, or something like that. A lot of them get their news from the defense industry. It's a symbiotic relationship where it's as dependent on the defense agencies for those scoops that give them good news to put in as the defense agency is to a certain extent for them for whatever message they wanna get out. It becomes this thing where but wasn't there another viewpoint?
Speaker 2:I guess you could say that if in fact we did have a threat that the military industrial complex could make even more money, but I don't know.
Speaker 1:It is. No, you're absolutely right. But one could really say have they ever? They always can find something and they always have. It was communism. It's terrorism, it's whatever it is. Now it's white supremacists, whatever it is. They can find a reason to make us scared. You don't need to go to aliens Like you don't need to. They literally just keep hyping China and Russia.
Speaker 2:Well, the other way looking at it is if we in fact there was some force that we realized there was gonna be a reckoning right.
Speaker 2:That we would as a planet kind of all get together and the might maybe of one country's industrial complex wouldn't be as vast because they'd have to cooperate with all the other countries. So the money to be made might be less because there isn't as many contractors like we have here. Maybe in China and Russia it's more governmental than here. We kind of think of it as government, but most of it is private contractors working for the government. That's where the money is, and in Russia and China it's not, it's through the government. So if Russia, china, united States let's say those three, some of the three biggest players right Defense all had to get together, then the contractors in this country would make less money. That's another way of looking at it.
Speaker 1:We're gonna have to get over this idea.
Speaker 1:Telling humans to get over greed. It's either get over it or let it take us down the toilet, because our model is broken. It's broken, we know it's broken. It's being broken by AI, it's.
Speaker 1:There was a very simple calculus Humans could do things to generate money and money could be used to buy stuff, like those two things just kind of kept everything going. And now, all of a sudden, there's a way of work being done that has nothing to do with us, for most of us. So all of a sudden, that whole system that relied on us, you can take us out of the equation and it just can't continue. It just can't because if you just look at everything, the way our system is exponential growth. Every company has to make more every quarter, like it can't keep going.
Speaker 1:Unless we get out to the, unless we expand, as you know, unless we get out of this, we're keeping all our eggs in one basket. This basket called earth gets destroyed. Goodbye us. The only hope of us is to expand beyond that and then you can have exponential growth, not while we're in the confines of this planet, fighting over the resources of this planet. If we get out to out there, there are limitless resources we could, you know, still keep our ways. We're just gonna have to rethink it a little bit, and it blows my mind that we're not doing that. I don't know. It's funny because this you have both things like AI thing, like all the other things it's all happening at once and each one of those is gonna knock a pillar out of what we've come to rely on as a people. We're gonna have to figure this out quick, because it's happening. We can't stop it.
Speaker 2:So is this act you're talking about here? Is this now law?
Speaker 1:I believe they just voted. It was added into the amendment, it was added into the National Defense Authorization Act. I believe they just voted on it the other day and it had a tough time passing. It did pass, but it had a tough time passing because there's some other political things going on that Republicans are putting some other types of things in the National Defense Authorization Act that are political hot buttons for the Democrats. But it did pass and the problems against it had nothing to do with this specific legislation.
Speaker 2:So now I believe it's not done, it will be an effect for the next hearings.
Speaker 1:No, what happens is is that this has to get done the Senate, and then the House, and then they have to have a committee. There's a lot more. This is thing usually gets signed by the president in December.
Speaker 2:So this will still be it won't be an effect Will not.
Speaker 1:But so just a little to a little bit more here. There is just a little bit more to highlight in this, because that was just the very beginning.
Speaker 1:But basically it goes on and on. It's pages and pages and pages. But they want to put together a board, basically, of people who are gonna be answerable to the president. So the president is supposed to put together this board of people whose job it will be to review all the documentation and evidence that the United States government has in relation to unidentified aerial phenomena and possible non-human intelligence and basically decide what can be let out to the public. Like that's huge. They talk about who's gonna be on this panel? And again blows my mind.
Speaker 2:Let me find that area, because I would like to see something placed in one of these acts that it states, without a lot of interpretation, what documents or what information should be disclosed to the public, instead of deciding Well, they're gonna have to be some standard.
Speaker 1:The standard is national security, so that's always the standard. That is the problem is because so much of this is locked behind that.
Speaker 2:It's just such a vague topic. I mean a vague title.
Speaker 1:It is, it is, but listen to what this panel will have right. Shall include one current or former national security official, one current or former foreign service official, one scientist or engineer, one economist, one professional historian and one sociologist.
Speaker 2:So that's the We've seen something like that in the prior law.
Speaker 1:So, and again it's called the Disclosure Act. There's a lot more to this legislation. I need to go through it.
Speaker 1:The sociologist goes to the point we were discussing as to Us Reactions to information Right Is it's being able to take this and, sociologically, what it's going to do to us. Okay, so there's that aspect of it. So then we have the hearings coming up next week, so there'll be a lot more to talk about on this, but basically the date for these congressional hearings. We've talked about congressional hearings before, but I've been corrected that those really weren't hearings. What we were watching were briefings. When we watched, they called it the UFO hearings. They're two guys from the Pentagon, right? Remember that they have those Pentagon guys, right? But that wasn't really a hearing. It was a briefing because they were asking questions and while technically, they have to tell the truth, so it's not like.
Speaker 2:Why would I have to hear it if you're asking questions?
Speaker 1:The difference is when you have witnesses. Those weren't witnesses, those were officials.
Speaker 2:Who are briefing?
Speaker 1:So a true hearing is when you have witnesses who are sworn in and telling Congress hey, what's going on here? What did you? What is your you know? When they did the AI ones and Sam Altman and they were asking industry professionals and the AI people, you know what? What's going on with this? Different questions about AI. So that's a. That's a hearing. What we've seen in the UAP thing have been called hearings, but really they're just been briefings. We saw Kirk Patrick in the Senate brief, kirsten Gillibrand as to what Arrow's been up to. Again, they call them hearings, but they're really not. This one is going to be a hearing. They are not going to be talking to people from the Pentagon, are they going?
Speaker 2:to be telling who is going to testify. Yes, we will probably hear the the it's only 10 days away.
Speaker 1:It's 10 days away, about a week before they will announce the thing. Okay, they announced the witnesses Tim Burchett, a congressman from Tennessee, and a congresswoman, luna, from Florida. Those are the two who are running the show. Burchett said something about they wanted to keep their list of witnesses close to the vest because there's already been attempts by the Pentagon Again, he said this on an interview, so there are already been attempts by the Pentagon to intimidate some witnesses and tell them it would probably not be a great idea to testify. That alone should be getting people's attention. But okay, going to be pilots, we may see flavor.
Speaker 1:You talked about this, ryan Graves, we may. He wants people who have witnesses Grush just to talk about, and somebody will say, okay, but he can't talk about classified things. You're not going to get disclosure in a in a government hearing. Again, you're not going to get it there. What they're going to be able to do, though, is ask the right questions. All this is built around sparking the public's interest, and the public is interested, but getting past that inflection point that you keep talking about, of when does everyone's eyes turn towards this, and you cannot deny it anymore.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so who knows? But you can have your own thoughts on it.
Speaker 1:This could be the stepping point, because all it takes is that one story we don't know what it is that gets widely reported.
Speaker 2:I just don't know, because last year, in a span of what? Three, four days, the United States military shot down three unidentified objects. None of those objects have been recovered. They say, oh yeah, we can't get to it. All this, all that and there's no follow-up. What were they? If you, most people within days, can't?
Speaker 1:This is too much. There's too much for us to care about everything. You're right, I couldn't stop thinking about it Because we're in that realm, but it hasn't gone away completely. As a matter of fact, there have been questions asked of various people, because now enough time passes and people circle back around. Whatever happened with those things? Yeah,
