(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 2)
What if we’re not alone in the universe? Retired Colonel Carl Nell joins us at the prestigious SALT Conference in New York City to shed light on the compelling world of UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) and recent disclosures. With his extensive background ranging from Army Space Command to Bell Labs and Lockheed Martin, Carl offers a unique perspective on how financial interest in emerging technologies can drive innovation. His insights, shared in front of an audience of influential investors, highlight the profound question of extraterrestrial existence and its potential implications for our future.
In an eye-opening segment, we dive into the extraordinary claims made by high-ranking officials about UFOs and advanced alien technologies. From Chris Mellon to Haim Eshed, these figures have made some startling assertions about secretive government knowledge and cosmic conspiracies. Colonel Nell’s endorsement of these claims adds a layer of credibility, pushing the boundaries of what we believe is possible. We also discuss the personal and financial sacrifices made by whistleblowers like David Grush and Luis Elizondo, emphasizing the societal and legal challenges they face in their quest for truth.
Lastly, we ponder the broader implications of potential non-human intelligence disclosure. Could society withstand such a revelation, or would it lead to chaos reminiscent of historical collapses? Our discussion considers whether modern civilization is equipped to handle undeniable proof of UAPs, comparing it to the transformative impact of religious faith. We also explore the strategic race to reverse-engineer alleged non-human crafts and the geopolitical stakes involved. This episode promises a thought-provoking journey into the mysteries that lie beyond our current understanding, encouraging listeners to question the reality we know.
SALT
"Zero Doubt" Non-Human Intelligence on Earth - Col. Karl Nell & Alex Klokus | SALT iConnections NY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpl0FrdJWfs
Former Canadian defence minister Paul Hellyer says aliens will help humans if we stop wars
Former Israeli space security chief says extraterrestrials exist, and Trump knows about 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 Steve and we're talking about some deep shit, and we're back again to talk about some more deep shit. Hey, steve, chris, how you doing? Good? This is part two of our UAP catch-up episode. Yeah, there's a lot to talk about, so much we're going to dive right into it. So last episode we talked about the UAP Disclosure Act and what happened to that, and a little bit of the talk on the Senate floor happened to that, and a little bit of a talk on this on the senate floor. Now we're going to talk about a conference that happened recently, uh, earlier this year, so it's called the salt conference. Okay, it's a um salt.
Speaker 1:It's a global investment platform that connects institutional asset owners with innovative asset managers and technology entrepreneurs.
Speaker 1:So it was founded in 2009 by Skybridge Capital and it operates as an independent entity and their mission is to drive prosperity and innovation by linking investment capital with intellectual capital. So it's a conference where the money people come to learn about what technological what's out there, what's on the horizon, what's what's being talked about, what are good investment, future investment opportunities. Because once money starts, once investment, people start to see that there's potential and money in a, in a in a certain thing, then energy goes towards it, then, then, then it starts to become a thing. So there was this conference, and so last year, when they had the conference, dr gary nolan, who is an immunologist from stanford, he got on stage and basically they asked him they have a little part at the end where they do they talk about uf, ufos actually and he got up there and he basically said, you know, now there's something going on. So this year it was supposed to be dav David Grush, the UAP witness from the hearings, the whistleblower. Yeah, they call him a whistleblower but he's really not.
Speaker 2:I mean, that's how everybody knows him.
Speaker 1:Yeah, they use the term whistleblower too liberally. Whistleblower is someone who comes out, kind of almost like illegally, to say, hey, this is going on, where you consider a lot of these people, witnesses, because they're going through the process. But, regardless, he was supposed to be in attendance but he had to cancel due to scheduling conflict. So in his place was Colonel Carl Nell, so Retired right, he's retired. He was, yeah, he's a major hitter, he's retired right, he's retired, he's a major hitter. He's basically been in the military since like the late 80s or actually probably sooner.
Speaker 1:But then he was in different technology Lockheed Martin, all the different three-letter agencies. So I'll let him say it himself, because I have clips of this. So we're going to play each of these clips and kind of go through himself, because I have clips of this. So so we're going to play each of these clips and kind of go through. But this happened earlier this year in front of you know, a large gathering in new york city of money people, in other words, these are the people who drive stuff when, when, uh, when technology starts, when new technologies emerge. These are the people first, people to be putting money into it to to make it happen so you and I were not invited to this.
Speaker 1:We are not invited to this yet. No, it's a. This was. This was far beyond. Actually, this was done um. This, this organization I'm trying to find what um, I can't remember his name. There's a particular uh um money guy that that started this.
Speaker 1:But but regardless, all right, so I'm going to play the first part. So at the end of this conference again, a lot of the conference speeches were investment people getting up and talking about some new technology that's coming or some new innovations and trying to drive capital to the right places, right? So at the end of the conference they had this talk and so we'll kind of go here, all right, so let's play the first part.
Speaker 4:Hello everyone, thank you for coming this evening. I'm glad that we are the final talk of this year's SALT event and I'm very excited to discuss what I consider to be one of the most consequential questions of our lifetime, which is are we alone in the universe? And I'm very lucky to have Carl Nell here joining me for this conversation. Carl, thank you so much for coming, and Anthony and AJ over at SALT, thank you so much for hosting this. So, carl, maybe to begin can you share a little bit about your background, who you are and perhaps why people should care what you say.
Speaker 3:Sure Well, thanks, alex. It's a pleasure and honor to be here. It's a fantastic event and I'm glad to see a large bunch of folks that stuck it out to the end for this talk. So I was fortunate. I had a four-year ROTC scholarship to Penn. I graduated with a degree in electrical engineering.
Speaker 3:The Army sent me overseas to do single-core engineering projects. So I did a lot of strategic comm projects in Europe. I ended up working in Army Space Command. I commanded a satellite ground station war trace to the Joint Chiefs. I spent some time at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The Army ultimately sent me to get a master's in mechanical engineering, a master's in strategic studies.
Speaker 3:Graduate work in computer science. I was on track to stay in but I decided that I wanted to pursue more of a technical career. So I got out and ended up working at Bell Labs, which was a fantastic place. Unfortunately, I was there during the trivestiture that folks may be familiar with, where the company got split up. I left Bell Labs and ended up working in Lockheed Missiles and Space. I worked at Northrop Grumman. I've ran strategic technology programs in the defense industry, worked for a lot of the three-letter agencies.
Speaker 3:Ultimately was a deputy chief of staff or deputy CTO for a $2 billion company. I was a vice president, general manager of a Northern Virginia-based R&D firm. I stayed in the military in the reserve. I commanded at every grade level through brigade. I was fortunate to stand up the Army's newest expeditionary MI brigade. I was the deputy chief of staff for combatant command. Ultimately, this experience sort of combined to give me the opportunity to come in and advise Army Futures Command the largest reorganization in the Army Reserve since really 1973, on how the Army could be more effective. And my last assignment was involved with the UAP Task Force, which maybe is the most apropos for this discussion.
Speaker 1:All right, so those are his bona fides. Does he sound pretty qualified? Yes, I mean, this is a guy who, like you just heard, he's worked with all the three-letter agencies. He's done satellite stuff. I mean, our satellites are one of the most secret. The number of people who have access to our satellite data is very small. That's a very vaulted. Actually, david Grush was another one that was in that kind of position, but, like, this is high. This is a guy. Now he's speaking in front of a room full of investors, people who know, who just heard his bio and have just, you know, it sounded impressive to us, but it probably sounds way more impressive when you know what all those things are. Right, right, there's specifics in there that are like whoa, one of those would be a big you know, a big part on somebody's resume.
Speaker 1:It just goes on and on with him. He's done it all Right. So one could say okay, so if there's something going on, he'd be in a very good position to know about it. Okay, so we set up his bonafide. So now let's. Now let's get to the meat of it and so, carl, here's.
Speaker 4:Here's the million dollar question do you believe that a higher form of non-human intelligence has visited this planet?
Speaker 3:right. So non-human intelligence exists. Non-human intelligence has been interacting with humanity. This interaction is not new and it's been ongoing, and there are unelected people in the government that are aware of that.
Speaker 4:And so, Carl, that is quite a bold statement. I'm wondering, and I'm curious how confident are you that that is true?
Speaker 3:There is zero doubt, there is zero doubt.
Speaker 1:There is zero doubt, so that's kind of huge. I mean again, one could say, well, it's just somebody saying it, but it's not just somebody saying it, it's somebody who's been in all those situations.
Speaker 2:Now, something to consider too is he said that there wasn't really an uproar in the crowd of these technologies. People that really understand technology, yeah. It wasn't like whoa, whoa, whoa.
Speaker 1:I think a lot of them were expecting it, because, I mean, that's what the talk was, right.
Speaker 2:But yes Again, if there was a retired colonel with these qualifications in the private and military industries. That just said that I just would expect kind of maybe like some confusion.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and you're right. It's almost like okay, what else? All right, so what else does he have? Okay, let's hear more.
Speaker 4:And Carl, what evidence have you seen? What was the moment where you developed this level of conviction? Because what you're saying is extremely consequential and very important and I know that a lot of people here even perhaps, may not believe that statement.
Speaker 3:Right? Well, probably a better way to ask that is, how can the folks in the audience come to the you know, a common understanding of what this phenomenon is, and so there's sort of two tracks here. One is from first principles and another is actually from the data. So let's take a look at the data so we can look at some folks that have very high-level access to information, like Paul Hellyer, who was the defense chief for Canada, has come out and said the same thing. We look at Ham Eshed, the head of Israel's or former head of Israel's Space Force, has said the same thing.
Speaker 3:Chris Mellon, deputy Assistant Secretary for Intel SAPCO, has essentially said the same thing. Lou Elizondo has said the same thing. David Grush has said the same thing. David Grush cleared for presidentially level material. So you're looking at people that are in a position to know this and they're telling you the same thing. You could take a look at the Gang of Eight in the Senate and in Congress congress. So there's two members of the gang of eight, marco rubio and senator truck schumer that signed up to the uap disclosure amendment last year that basically said they're not being told the truth and we need to push forward on that so a couple of things there.
Speaker 1:One is he asked what evidence? And he kind of changed carnell, changed the question and said how can people kind of understand what's going on? So a lot of people, uh, a lot of detractors, were like, well, he didn't give us any evidence, he just mentioned names of other people. He can't tell you what he knows, he would go to jail again. We gotta remember this secret is up there with nuclear and that is not a. We're not just making that up. If you go back and look at the Nuclear Energy Act, the Atomic Energy Act of like 1954 or something I think it was around then it states in there basically it puts UFOs in that category of that secret. So he says, okay, how can you understand what's going on of that secret? So he says, okay, how can you understand what's going on? Basically, here are some really high up people who are in a position to know this and they're telling you the same thing. So very interesting If he's going to pick people right, he's not just going to pick random people who said something similar. He's going to pick people he knows are speaking the truth. So he mentioned Chris Mellon, he mentioned Lou Elizondo, he mentioned David Grush. It's the earlier ones. He mentioned Paul Hellyer.
Speaker 1:Paul Hellyer is a former Canadian minister of national defense and he was out of office and he came out and said public statements that UFOs are extraterrestrials, that there's an alien presence on this planet that has lasted thousands of years, that the government knows about it and has been aware of the presence, and that they've been suppressing technology and advances like we're just talking about advanced technology that could change the world is being suppressed by the governments. And he became a big advocacy for disclosure. Um he he did speeches where he called it a cosmic conspiracy involving the suppression of knowledge about extraterrestrial civilizations and advanced technologies. So Carl Nell said hey, paul Hellyer is telling you the same thing. Well, paul Hellyer said a lot more than we just have a few crash saucers. He said some what was considered at the time crazy-ass stuff, but now Carl Nell is pointing to him and saying no, you should listen to him. There was another name he threw out Haim Eshed.
Speaker 1:He was the former head of Israeli's space security program, a very respected scientist, and there were headlines in 2020-ish where he came out and he said similar things to paul hellyer, but he also added there's a galactic federation that has been in contact with various governments around the world, including the united states and israel, and according to him, this federation consists of multiple different extraterrestrial species who are working together. Uh, he says there are secret agreements. Sounds like stat trek. Right and his bona fides again. This is not just some joker. This was the former head of israeli space program and he hasn't really talked about it since he came out and made that statement. Then he's kind of gone quiet and he doesn't say anything more on it.
Speaker 2:But like he says, that's not even the craziest of what he said, I want to say I, my memory is that he said that um, we knew about it too right.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the united states knows about it, says israel knows about it. He says there's a base on mars where american astronauts and extraterrestrials work together. I mean, this is far out stuff. That's saying and if you look up the, you know articles from this and I find one. I'll link some in the show notes just so you can go check it out and see. I mean it's it sounded like crazy talk and that was how it was kind of treated in 2020. Again, that's still post-2017, with a New York Times article, but that's still a road too far. Right, at this point, we're willing to talk about UFOs and aliens. We're not willing to talk about some other things like abductions and even people talking about bodies and things like that make certain people uncomfortable in government.
Speaker 1:They just want to stick to UFOs, non-human presence. Let's just stick with that, let's not get bogged down. But I mean, again Colin Nelson comes out and says okay, these are the people who you should be listening to, this Canadian minister who said that, and then this Israeli head of their space command who said there's a base on Mars, there's a galactic federation, there's Well, how do you? He also said that the delay in disclosure is not all of our choice. He says that the extraterrestrials themselves have requested that their existence remain concealed from the public until humanity is ready to accept and understand their presence. He implied that a current global climate and societal structures are not yet prepared for such a revelation, and he also claims that advanced scientific endeavors and technological innovations that are known to a select few within the scientific and military communities and being withheld from everyone else. So I mean, that's the part of this that blows the mind.
Speaker 1:Now, if you just heard this guy talk and he talks, all right, these are the other people were saying chris mellon and lou elizondo, and you know, david, and you know just okay, but the first two people he mentioned have said some outlandish stuff which, which carl nell colonel carl nell, who has commanded every level up to brigade, who has access, like you wouldn't believe has pointed to these two individuals to say they're telling you the same thing. Right, listen to them. That's extraordinary, like… I don't think people realize how extraordinary that is. He's basically putting his reputation behind what they have claimed, and what they've claimed sounds so outlandish. Like you said, it sounds like Star Trek, a galactic federation. Are you kidding me? That is Star Trek. Right, you know it's what does they have a prime directive too that they're not supposed to interfere Apparently. So Maybe they do Apparently. So If they made the request, hey, you're not ready for us yet, you're not ready for us, so you can't tell your people because they'll freak out. That's something I mean. How do you respond to that? Well, I mean.
Speaker 2:What do you think? So we have this individual, colonel Nell, on top of all these other people saying this. And then there was a recent news article that Harvard researchers have found that, you know, one of the explanations for the intelligent life could be that they are in fact living on this planet already. They've been here, they've been here. They've been here right.
Speaker 2:Or they're at least here, and I think sometimes we, as humans, our frame of reference is what we are, right. So when we say, oh, where could they be? Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be exactly the way we view biology, right, so that's a different road road, but this is mind-blowing stuff actually. And, um, how matter of fact right it is. When these individuals talk about it, they're not saying, oh, it's like listen to some crazy person, they're just no, it doesn't mean they're telling the truth, it doesn't mean that. But but you know, when you see enough why people those levels speaking the same thing, right, you know, you start to say to yourself maybe we should look into this?
Speaker 1:Have they all decided just about now to throw their careers in the toilet by making uncorroborated wild speculation claims? Have they all just decided at one time. I've had a really solid career. I've really built up a good reputation. I think I'll just throw that in the trash by making up some crazy stuff.
Speaker 2:Well, sometimes people will say things about the David Grush. Right you know, and well you know, he's maybe selling a book or he's going on tour.
Speaker 3:You know, they say that about all these people right they do.
Speaker 2:You know what kind of career, though? He's thrown away. If he decided not to say anything, he could consulting. He's not going to make that kind of money. Now he because of what he did right he's just not going to um. He stepped down, he gave up. That that's what I mean, right, so it's not a I. I can't find the incentive to do it.
Speaker 1:That's a personal gain yeah, the problem is is that it's always used. The fact that anyone tries to monetize it in any way is always used to sort of invalidate their argument. But this is the system we have. You've got to pay your bills too, right, luis Elizondo who? Unless they find us free energy, right, unless they find us free energy, in which case a lot of people are going to be like I'm not going to work tomorrow. Screw that.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, why would I?
Speaker 1:go to work tomorrow when you could power my house for free, right you know. So that's. The other problem is the disruption, is not? Some of it's going to be like people refusing to just go back to work, like good little citizens. Are you kidding me? You just told us that there's a galactic federation that's visiting us with unlimited energy and could basically fix all our ecological problems, and you just want me to go back to my nine to five. Are you serious? But that's the thing is luis alessandro. He has a book coming out in august. He's been working on this a long time it's actually been. He had to go back and forth. I mean, the government has to clear everything he says. Just because they clear it doesn't mean they endorse it. It just means that he's not saying anything. He's not supposed to.
Speaker 1:He's not going to jail, so he's supposed he's been going back and forth with the manuscript, but that's coming out in August, and there's some people that say, well, he has a book coming out, so he's making it up for the book. Does that mean anyone who does anything that makes them money? They're full of crap because they're making money, right? So the only people who can get engaged in these things are people who are independently wealthy and don't need to make money. That's kind of elitist, right? Only the rich and powerful can get involved in these things, because anyone else is going to still have to pay bills and so they're going to have to monetize it in some small way, and that invalidates their argument.
Speaker 1:You know what I'm saying? It's a clever way that debunkers who are against UFOs will try to make it a topic that's ridiculous but not actually grapple with the actual evidence. They're going to attack the people who are saying it. Oh my God, they're just taking a secondhand information. All right, colonel Cornell, okay, he's got a great resume, but he's offering no proof. He's getting up in front of this. They asked him how he knows this to be true, and I think everyone wanted him to say, well, we have this and we have this and we have this, but he can't say that, right, because he'll go to jail. It doesn't matter how much is on his resume If he breaks the rules of what he's supposed to say and what he's not supposed to say, he will go to jail.
Speaker 2:And he does not want to go to jail, so he said it without saying it. Do you think they'll ever be somebody that just says it? I think so, and then everyone's going to wonder why you're putting this person in jail well, that's the thing is.
Speaker 1:Right is is, if what are you doing is if somebody does come out and say it, and then they try to put them in jail, well then that validates what they're saying, because they wouldn't put them in jail if they were just making up stuff. But right it's kind of a yeah, it's a catch-22 again this is.
Speaker 2:I wouldn't want to be the one testing the waters, put it that way. But nobody wants to be.
Speaker 1:That's what it is and that's what's keeping everybody cautious. I mean they, they, what about somebody?
Speaker 2:you know, like this guy um nell right, when he's much, much older, is there is there maybe? They get worried about something else happening to their legacy or their family, yeah, and that means I mean their wealth, their, pension yeah.
Speaker 1:Right If you've been in your military your whole career you have a pension, transfers to your wife.
Speaker 1:I mean, you're right, there's a lot of different but there have been many aging military people, particularly with Roswell, who come out towards the end and said stuff and they disregarded. You know, if you're still someone who has doubts about this, look at someone with the head of the CIA in the early days After they left the CIA. What became of them? A couple of them kind of went into UFO advocacy. One in particular, astronomer, j Allen Hynek. He was connected with Blue Book. He was the one that debunked a lot of these things. He was the one that came up with swamp gas. Yes, blue Book. He created a UFO organization because he realized there was something to it and he basically came out and said, no, all the interesting cases they wouldn't.
Speaker 1:Let us put it in that report I hear a lot. Well, if this was true, somebody would come out and say it. Right, people have been coming out and saying it forever. It's just, every time they do, they're dismissed. It's kind of a way of just not dealing with it. Right, it's like well, we won't believe the UFO thing until someone of prominence comes out and tells us it's true. But as soon as someone of prominence comes out and says it, they're now smeared as a UFO believer and their word is not worth anything. So it's that catch-22. How do I tell you it's happening if every time somebody comes out to tell you it's happening, you say, well, I can't listen to them. Now, when is someone with credentials going to come out? Well, here's another guy with credentials.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but he believes in UFOs.
Speaker 1:So obviously he's crazy, not that person. So it's, we met somebody else. Yeah, it's a no win situation, but anyway, let there. There was more to say. So that's sort of an overview of some of the data.
Speaker 3:From a first principle standpoint. What's so unusual about this realization? There's billions of stars in the galaxy. Life here evolved in 500 million years, which is basically a blink of an eye. We found planets around every star that we've looked at. It's likely that the universe is full of life.
Speaker 3:If you look at the SETI program in particular, the SETI program has all the same assumptions that you would accept and probably make with respect to this topic, except that they believe that non-human intelligence is transmitting signals here, but at the same time, like we're not transmitting signals. Signal SET is doesn't transmit signals, and the only signals that are actually broadcast, of high enough power into space for somebody to pick up, come from broadcast television and ballistic missile early warning systems, which, you could argue our technology is moving away from. We're going to satellite, we're going to fiber. Broadcast tv is a thing of the past, and if you get to some state where society is stable, maybe we don't need ballistic missile early warning system. So so the other guy is probably not going to transmit, but what the other guy may do is come here if that's possible to do, and there's there's physics models that suggest that that may be possible.
Speaker 1:All right, so so that's interesting. So first of all he says how? Why is this surprising to any of us? There are billions of stars, billions and billions of planets. The universe has been around a long time. There's no way there's not other life out there, and if they've had this much time long enough, they could come here by conventional means. That, even if it would take a long time, if they've been around that long, right? So first of all he's saying why is this surprising to anyone? Obviously, if you just think about it for two seconds you'd go. That's a pretty big universe. There's a lot of planets out there and, as you know, we're finding more. Right Now they're saying when we were in school we were taught to believe planets like Earth were pretty rare. Right, probably we're the only one. The universe is dead. Now they're pretty much admitting that every solar system has at least one planet. That's in the Goldilocks At least, at least.
Speaker 2:Possibly others, depending on the exact specification.
Speaker 1:And that's not galaxies, that's solar systems, solar systems of which there are so many in a galaxy and so many galaxies like the numbers are so mind-boggling that it's impossible to think there isn't life. Then he says I love this. He takes a swipe at seti right, because what has always been our search for extraterrestrial intelligence, it's been the SETI program. We're listening for radio signals Because, hey, we do radio signals and TV signals. So if there's another civilization out there, they must do it too, so we can get those.
Speaker 1:But, as you know, colonel Nell points out out how long did we use signals? I mean in the early 1900s. We don't use it anymore now. We're, all you know, streaming and cable, and so if somebody were listening for our signals, it's only a very narrow window that they would have gotten anything. If they started too early, we didn't have radio yet. If they started too late, we've already moved, you know. Or tv signals, we've already moved past that. So I love that, because he's calling seti out as this kind of useless. It is useless. This is what your government gives you right to. Let you say oh, chris, there, we are looking into this, seti's looking into this, and they haven't found anything yet. So I guess there's nothing. I looked at so I'm.
Speaker 2:This says that in the milky way alone. Scientists estimate there could be 60 billion planets alone in the milky way with habitable zones capable of supporting life, considering the vast number of galaxies researchers estimate about 50 sextillion, which I'm not sure. Research estimate about 50 sextillion, which I'm not sure. Sextillion potentially habitable planets in the universe. So I mean that's a big jump from when you and I were in elementary school.
Speaker 1:Yes, the bar keeps moving. As you notice, life keeps getting closer. When we were young in school there's no life out there, we're it. There's no evidence, it's a cold dead universe. And then, slowly but surely, oh you know what, there might be planets out there that have. There might be solar systems out there that have planets that can support life. Oh, there definitely are. Oh my God, they're in every solar system. Like it's gotten close, now there might be life on the moon of Jupiter.
Speaker 2:Like you see these headlines this is kind of like, if you look back right, bringing it close, somebody lived on hawaii, uh, three thousand years ago, right, right, I don't know, just making the numbers up to them. That's the world. Right, the world. Is your island. Right, the what's happening other places? You have no idea because there isn't anything else.
Speaker 2:Right, you can't travel there easily, I can't get there and I, you know you're getting a boat from hawaii. You know, it probably was a long, long time that people said this is it right? And that's kind of where we were. We're still there, we are.
Speaker 3:We know that we now?
Speaker 2:we know, you know, maybe, okay, we know there's land over there, but there can't be anybody there living. And because we're, we're it, you know, and it's just we keep doing it.
Speaker 1:We always do that, and we, we know these things exist. Like I've never been to China, I know China exists, right, there's evidence, there's no, I've never seen it, I've never set foot on it, I've never laid eyes on the Great Wall myself, so it could all be crap Then, well, how do you explain all the people, the Chinese people?
Speaker 2:Well, maybe they're you know like you can but there was a time it's ridiculous that you probably wouldn't have known China existed.
Speaker 1:You wouldn't have known because, yeah, exactly when you know, when we didn't really know much of the world beyond where we were. So it's very interesting that he points that out.
Speaker 2:It's weird though that people use that argument, you know because I mean it just goes to the old thing, the old saying you only know what you know, Yep, and if you don't have that information, well, you can't contemplate it.
Speaker 1:Some things you got to take on evidence. I have to take on evidence that China exists, even though I've never seen it myself. There's substantial evidence, there is some footage of it that such a place exists. Right, could be fake though it could, how do I know that's China? You know it could be another place that they're just telling me it's China.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean, if there was a video footage of another planet with life on it, it would have a much different weight.
Speaker 1:It's right, it's hard. I mean, it's not the exact correlation, because we know something exists if there's enough proof of it, well, it exists. But I love him calling out SETI that's basically his way of saying like that's crap, guys, it's outdated. It never was.
Speaker 2:I mean, it was an attempt. It never was serious. I don't look at it. I don't know if every scientist that was behind it thought it was going to be a fool.
Speaker 1:Oh no. No, I'm sure there's some, I don't. In any cover-up there's always people who are being earnest and they don't know they're part of a cover-up. Not every person who's involved in a cover-up knows it.
Speaker 2:They're doing their job I mean, if you think about it when it was, when it first was developed, it was an idea let's shoot out some way radio waves. See what we get for a response right, but it's just.
Speaker 1:And then at that time we couldn't imagine ourselves not using, you know, transmission. Well, how else would we get TV and radio?
Speaker 2:It would be like trying to talk to somebody now and saying there's going to be a technology that makes the internet outdated. Right People would say what are you?
Speaker 1:talking about? Right, couldn't even imagine it. It's going to happen. So that's the thing is. Okay, maybe SETI was well-intentioned when it was created, but at this point we know we don't even use signals anymore, right? And then he said something very interesting. He said the only things that we produce that could go out there to be detected are TV signals, which we're doing less of, and the early warning ballistic missile systems which transmit.
Speaker 2:And he said oh, what is that exactly Basically?
Speaker 1:the nuclear. You know all the. When a nuclear war happens, we detect a launch.
Speaker 2:Oh so, this isn't something that gets.
Speaker 1:Not something. But that's why he says you know, maybe we'll get to a stable point where that technology isn't even necessary anymore, if we're not on the brink of war. So I thought that was interesting. So anyway, let's hear a little bit more.
Speaker 4:Okay, and Carl, I mean, what you're saying is extremely consequential, and you've referenced other people that have said the same thing that also have similar credibility. There's similar reasons for why we should believe many of these folks. Yet the government itself has not formally disclosed. They've been very reluctant to do that. Why, why do you think that is so?
Speaker 3:there's six basic reasons.
Speaker 1:Oh, this is very interesting.
Speaker 3:Again, you could draw this out from first principles. There's a national security reason, there's the lack of a plan, there's the potential for societal disruption, there's the possibility that there's some non-public agreement. There's the potential for societal disruption, there's the possibility that there's some non-public agreement, there's the potential for misdeeds and the desire to cover up misdeeds and there's just the basic organizational intransigence and lack of priority that might be associated with the topic. So all these things are factors. The issue is that really the national security issue subsumes all the others, and so there's an opportunity maybe to contract the national security issue similarly to what was done with nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, such that nuclear energy is not necessarily classified and is available to the public. But lack of a plan and the potential for societal disruption are key ingredients that would prevent any responsible leader from coming forward with information that they don't have the means to address in a responsible way. It would be irresponsible to do that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so he pretty much what we talked about earlier, which was there's a number of reasons why they wouldn't tell you, right? You? Know, there's any number and he listed them all off. You know fear of societal breakdown, trying to cover up misdeeds, trying to know, just not. You don't want to, you don't want things to change. Nobody wants things to change. Everybody wants things to stay. If they're good, stay essentially the same huge change scares people. So I thought that was interesting, but we already covered that. But we'll go on a little further okay.
Speaker 4:So so what you're saying is that you have absolute conviction that a higher form of non-human intelligence has visited this planet, that there are factions within our own government that know about this, yet we still don't have a plan and they may represent a security issue. This may pose a threat to humans, yet you still believe that we should disclose. Is that right?
Speaker 3:Correct Right.
Speaker 3:So there's really three reasons that trump all those others, and those others are basically valid, like I said. So the first issue is the moral right. The government exists for and by the people, and so the nature of reality is fundamentally not government information. People have a right to know the world in which we live, and the pursuit of happiness requires that knowledge. So that's sort of the first kind of overarching philosophical foundation for this.
Speaker 3:But you know, as a corollary to that, if there are misdeeds that were done, then they need to be remediated. If there's lack of proper oversight, which is suggested by some of the whistleblowers, that needs to be remediated. So the first issue is the moral issue. The second issue is being in a reactive mode is never preferable to being in a proactive mode. So reactive mode is basically trying to prevent disclosure, but failing that, you might get a situation where you have catastrophic disclosure that creates all the problems that you were trying to prevent. So a more balanced middle path of controlled disclosure is the best way to do this, which is again an argument for some amount of disclosure. And the third part is simply societal advance and global competitiveness. More brain trust needs to be brought into this topic in order to make progress and to improve society, and and so all three of those things together, trump. The six other reasons for non-disclosure.
Speaker 1:I like that when he says you know the nature of reality. The nature of reality is not government information, we need to. If this is a fact, if we are just but one planet of others and there's others out there we, the people, should know about it. That's not like well. That would be like to use our earlier example when the government found out there was a China, they kept it from everybody. Oh, there's nothing over there. Ah, don't worry about it. Nah, there's no other people. You could only do that for so long, because eventually there's going to be, you know, chinese.
Speaker 2:Japan actually did that for a long different, like a different era of their country where they pretty much didn't let anybody in.
Speaker 1:Right, and they wanted to just pretend they were the only ones and you could do that for a little while, right, but like there would be a point where you couldn't do it anymore. You know, you couldn't deny the existence of China if Chinese people start showing up and saying we're from China.
Speaker 1:They told us China it doesn't exist, you know. So I like that that he says that and he just basically says points out there are more reasons to tell people. There are good reasons not to tell everybody. We get it. There are also these reasons that you should tell the moral. And then the idea of catastrophic disclosure. This information cannot be contained forever. I mean, it certainly can't be contained if the others, whoever they are, decide to fly over a big city and just unveil themselves, although it sounds like they don't want to do that. But I mean, if this information comes out in an uncontrolled way, then you're going to get all the things you're trying to avoid in the first place. So you're better off releasing it slowly and acclimating everybody to it. So when the final shoe drops, it's not pandemonium, right? So I thought that was interesting. So there's more here. Let's continue.
Speaker 4:And what do you think happens if we don't disclose? I know you mentioned this idea of catastrophic disclosure. Maybe disclosure may be forced upon us. How do you think about that?
Speaker 3:So the situation is usually thought of as a binary state. It's like an all or nothing, and people have sort of argued this. But anybody paying attention realizes the government has already indicated that unidentified anomalous phenomena are real. They're not ours and they're not our adversaries. The Pentagon has said that, like for people that are paying attention, like that shoe already dropped. So for a lot of people, they think that the second shoe to drop is this is non-human intelligence, and maybe the conversation stops there, like the president comes out and says you know, there's non-human intelligence. The truth is that that will precipitate this crescendo of other questions that maybe the government's not ready to answer. That will court, if not precipitate, potential negative ramification for society, and so, as an example of this, I would actually point to something from the ancient past the Bronze Age collapse.
Speaker 3:So Eric Klein, princeton University 2015, wrote a very interesting book called 1177 BC, the year that civilization failed, and so this is well known to current scholarship Within a single lifetime, all of the very effective ancient civilizations of the Bronze Age failed due to a confluence of reasons that are not necessarily fully understood today.
Speaker 3:So we're talking about Egypt, the Hittite Empire, the Minoan Empire, the Minasian Empire, the Babylonian Empire. All these civilizations failed never to return, other than, let's say, egypt. And so these were highly sophisticated civilizations with highly developed infrastructures, highly developed administrative states. They were globalist, in a sense, very similar to today in terms of the known world, the known Near East. They were economically interdependent, they had both diplomatic ties and commerce ties, and yet these civilizations failed in a single lifetime because of stressors that these civilizations collectively could not address within the timeframe. And so if we look at our society today, one might argue that it's similarly fractured, similarly under economic stress, similarly under cultural stress as well. You know, fractured, uh, and fragile diplomatic situation. It mirrors very much this scenario, yeah, and. And so, for a responsible decision maker, that is certainly a factor that's interesting.
Speaker 1:He talks about that. You know all those civilizations that within one lifetime just failed, right? That is very interesting.
Speaker 2:Like thought that yeah there was a point where, like the population of the planet, too, had like plummeted to such a small degree, we were close to being extinct it is interesting, nobody really has a definite, definitive reason why, um, the bronze age ended just, and then it just became kind of um, like a kind of a dark period.
Speaker 1:Yeah, real dark period, yeah because and and all those civil not like you said those civilizations went under, never to return. So I thought that was interesting. You know, maybe that was a little too um, uh, a little too deep for, like, I think at that point people were like, why are you talking about that? He's saying that aliens made the civilizations collapse. But no, he's not saying that. What he's saying is is that the idea that civilizations could be out there, that a civilization could be going along seeming like everything's good and then stuff happens that it can't control and that civilization crumbles, has happened in the past, and so, and I think maybe he's alluding to, uh, holding a civilization together.
Speaker 2:Right is is not easy.
Speaker 1:You can't let things that could blow it up come out uncontrolled. I mean, if these facts are real, they're going to come out. If they come out in an uncontrolled way, a catastrophic disclosure, yes, society could crumble. I mean, it's not out of the realm of possibility no-transcript.
Speaker 4:A whole thing. So that's you know. But he's just saying, okay, this has happened before. Anyway, I thought that I thought that was interesting, and a few more, and and so I I guess, when you say that, um, are you implying that perhaps we as a society may not be ready for disclosure, or or are you saying that we may not be able to defend ourselves against this other force?
Speaker 3:so there's sort of different viewpoints on you know, whether people are ready to, you know, deal with this phenomenon and you know popular culture is kind of infused with this stuff. Roswell became a meme a long time ago. We got programs on ancient aliens, skinwalker Ranch, all this stuff. I guess I would draw an analogy, though, for people believe in a certain faith tradition, whatever that faith tradition is, and hold to that and subscribe to that in a very serious and devout way and sort of pose the question. Even for folks of that ilk and I would count myself as one if you're confronted with the reality of your religious belief system, like the reality of the metaphysical, an angel, a messenger from God, what have you? That's going to be a sea state change in your way of dealing with reality, right, even though you already believe it right. So it's one thing to believe and it's another to know, and I think in this context this phenomena has an analogous, the potential for an analogous effect both on the individual and on society.
Speaker 1:Wow, so that's a good point. That is a difference between believing and knowing Like you could believe in a certain thing. There are probably people out there who say they believe there are aliens and UFOs and if it was ever proven, those same people would have a hard time accepting it, even though they believe in it, because there's a, a. There's a difference between saying I believe in something and seeing it in front of you. Oh, and I thought that was interesting that he picked that religion too, because, like I say, there's the more I look into it, there seems to be correlations.
Speaker 1:There seems to be. I mean, if our religions weren't directly influenced by extraterrestrials of some sort. They certainly had some sort of impact on it, even if it's just a side impact on it, in that things that were them were attributed to religious events and they weren't involved.
Speaker 2:Well, it's interesting, Chris, that all ancient civilizations and civilizations today, and it's funny how they said that there's a possibility that maybe they're already here. There's a possibility that Harvard study that maybe they're living subterraneously.
Speaker 1:In our oceans.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that, generally, though, all religions, the good guys are from the sky and the bad guys are from down below, true, just about everyone, yeah, everyone, I mean maybe them, and it goes various degrees of good and bad, right, but, um, you know, the good guys are never on in the ground, right, but it's always right. Angels, you can go, you can go through it. Uh, make a lot of parallels between religion and, um, this phenomenon that we're discussing I've also heard it said too.
Speaker 1:It makes would make total sense that these things would go in the ocean. Because water if you are on a different planet from yours, water is the best thing, because water can only be so cold before it freezes and it can only be so hot before it evaporates. So your, your, your temperature, uh range is smaller in the water than it is on the, in the atmosphere, that's true, where it could be fiery, you know right, crazy, or it could be freezing cold, but with water it's kind of more in more stable and it would be the easiest place to be, uh, concealed, concealed, right, because?
Speaker 1:we can't. We can't really get down deep in our ocean, as different events have shown us in recent past.
Speaker 2:The number of people in the water is so much smaller than the number of people on land.
Speaker 1:Right and we only have like what small 10% maybe of our ocean floor studied.
Speaker 3:It's a very small percentage. We don't know much about it, I mean at least publicly. I'm sure the military knows a little bit more of our ocean floor. Uh, study, it's a very small percentage.
Speaker 1:We don't know much about it, I mean at least publicly. I'm sure the military knows a little bit more, but they have a whole problem here. But anyway, with a couple more, and then we'll wrap this one up but?
Speaker 4:but do you think that the phenomena, this non-human form of intelligence, represents a threat to humanity?
Speaker 3:so.
Speaker 3:So this is a good question too, and some of the other folks have sort of framed things in that in that light, and I guess I would suggest that if we're, the universe is governed by conservation laws, and it's probably reasonable to assume the laws of nature that we understand apply everywhere.
Speaker 3:We may have incomplete understanding undoubtedly we do of these laws, but they're sort of homogeneous and they apply throughout the universe, and so those laws are governed by conservation rules. There's conserved quantities, and so this reality really forces a Darwinian type competition in order to survive, and so it's reasonable to assume any other civilization that's evolved has come up through the same darwinian evolutionary process. So I think it's naive to expect complete altruism until and unless you get to a post, a state of post-scarcity, where you essentially have no, uh, you know, physical needs, uh, that were kind of encumbered with in in in this universe, and so in some it's the economics of the future that are going to determine whether there's cooperation, competition or some sort of symbiosis, and inform the intention. But to assume either malintent or complete altruism I think is somewhat naive.
Speaker 4:Yeah, so it sounds like what you're saying is it's impossible to know the true intentions of a higher intelligence. We may be competing for the same scarce resources.
Speaker 1:We may not be right, we may be almost irrelevant from them, irrelevant to them, and they may be acting altruistically, although we cannot safely assume that agree because I think if, if you did get to a point of free energy, you know something unlimited energy that that takes a lot of um, maybe it's not everything, but it takes a lot of the onus off to to compete you know, what he's saying is is that we can assume that the universe works on similar principles, in that resources and there are limited number of resources and they get, you know, consumed.
Speaker 1:I believe this was the plot of uh independence day, where that with it, they came here, would suck us dry of resources and destroy us and then move on right. Um, but they're saying you know, saying you know, we got to be cautious. We can't assume altruism, but we also shouldn't assume hostile intent. It could be somewhere in the middle like it's probably where it is just like most things could be.
Speaker 1:You know, they they're not strip mining our resources at least they don't appear to be, um, but they're not here as our saviors, yeah, and, and maybe the resources that they need are ones that either we don't miss or we're not utilizing like it's been. It's been theorized that maybe, um, maybe, water is where they recharge their engines, because it's something to do with hydrogen and all. I mean. There's ways of approaching it. We could say well, maybe there's a reason why. Maybe what they're here to collect isn't gold and silver or oil. It's something that we're not utilizing. So they're taking it and it's having no effect on us because we don't actually do anything with it.
Speaker 1:But, anyway, I thought that was an area I just want to.
Speaker 4:And so I guess I'm curious if we continue down this disclosure path, do you believe that disclosure is inevitable?
Speaker 3:So, again, people that sort of look at this topic and study it and there have been some, some good examinations on this from a historical standpoint realized that like we're not in really a new state, like this sort of disclosure emphasis has come and gone over time, and so this is not the first time we've arrived at this stage.
Speaker 3:I would suggest that maybe the peak of this current cycle happened last December with the Schumer Amendment, and then it got rolled back and was defeated in the House, and so it remains to be seen, you know, if the process is going to continue. One hopes and can maybe draw a little bit of confidence that maybe this will come around, is the colloquy that Senator Schumer and Senator Rounds had back in December After their amendment got killed. They basically went on the Senate floor and articulated their rationale for the legislation, and I think Senator Schumer, to quote him, almost said it was a travesty that this did not pass. So this is, you know, a bipartisan colloquy on a topic that I guess most people would probably consider fringe, and yet these two senators felt the need to do that and to double down on their desire to see this through. Yeah, so hopefully we'll see maybe a reintroduction of some version of that this, the National Defense Authorization Act that basically mirrored all the ones that were taken out.
Speaker 3:He had the review board.
Speaker 1:In there he had the eminent domain. What else did he have? There was a few others. He had a couple of, but basically all ones to strengthen the UAP thing. He had a couple of, but basically all ones, to strengthen the UAP thing. Unfortunately, the committee that decides what gets in the legislation did not pick up any of those. But that doesn't mean that they won't end up there, because the process continues. So it's possible that the Senate could put them in so either side could put them in. So he tried, robert Garcia tried he's a Democrat. He tried on the House side no-transcript to it and everybody did that. That's not going to happen this time. I don't think so. It can't. It's just the internet didn't exist then.
Speaker 4:So all right, a few more here yeah, I mean, I think the one thing that I don't fully understand that I'd love to get your thoughts on, carl. I mean, if we assume that a higher form of non-human intelligence has been visiting this planet, if we assume that some of the statements made by folks like Dave Grush are true, that we have crashed materials, and if we assume that those craft that we may have exhibit characteristics that defy our current understanding of physics, exhibit characteristics that defy our current understanding of physics, it would seem that that technology would provide an incredible strategic advantage to whatever nation ends up reverse engineering at first, and so to me, that would imply that there is a race happening to reverse engineer this and that this topic would be a top priority. Do you agree with that?
Speaker 3:So I think some of what you say is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn, and I've suggested something similar in past statements. The point here, though, is to go from a pre-disclosure to a post-disclosure world, maybe two stable states that are separated by an unstable middle ground, and so how you make that transition again, you know, this speaks to the concern about this catastrophic disclosure, and this has come up in sort of arms regulation too, mutually assured destruction. However much we don't like, it is sort of a stable kind of you know, geostrategic regime. You know, the Reagan era defense shield idea is also a very stable scenario, but to go from one to the other is very unstable, and so this topic sort of mirrors that.
Speaker 1:It kind of mirrors what you said earlier about nuclear weapons. Right, better that everybody, better that not everybody, but better than more than one nation state have them in order to kind of keep the peace, whereas if only one nation-state has it and everyone else is subjugated, they can do whatever the hell they want, right, because they'll say well, we have the big weapons and nobody else does so. I also like how he asked can we assume there's a race happening among the nations to like who can get, who can unlock this technology first? He doesn't say, he says you could, you could infer that with a reasonable conclusion.
Speaker 1:That's his way of saying yeah, I can't tell you that it is, but that's a reasonable conclusion.
Speaker 2:You might be on to something.
Speaker 4:Yeah, so I thought that and this is the last bit here and we'll wrap it up- yeah, and I know you and I were talking earlier about this idea that in order to really understand the phenomena, it's likely that we have to further our understanding of reality itself. And I guess I'm wondering I can imagine a future where we acknowledge and we know that there is a higher form of non-human intelligence, yet we still don't truly understand the phenomena, we still don't truly understand reality. And so I guess I'm wondering do you think that we'll ever truly understand what's going on, or if part of the game, part of the journey, part of life itself is operating in an environment where at least part of it is fundamentally unknowable to us?
Speaker 3:So this is a totally philosophical, epistemological question, right, really? About the nature of knowledge itself, right, like how can we know what we know and how can we be sure about what we know, I guess, personally, I subscribe to the idea that there is an ultimate truth and that humanity being, you know, created in the image of a higher power is endowed with the quality to pursue an understanding of that, and so part of our objective in this existence is to seek that out and try to understand that ultimate truth to a greater and greater degree, and this would be a component of that, obviously.
Speaker 4:Well, carl, I really appreciate you taking the time to chat with us today. Obviously. Well, carl, I really appreciate you taking the time to chat with us today. I'm hopeful and optimistic that together maybe we can move the ball forward here and further our understanding of what is really going on, because I certainly agree with you, I think it is very consequential that we figure this out. So thank you again for coming, thank you again to Salt for hosting us and thank you again for coming, thank you again to salt for hosting us and thank you all for listening.
Speaker 1:That's. I like that because he's basically saying you know it's, it's, it's common, it's not, you're not going to. This is we're going to find this out. It's, it's our goal to find, it's our destiny to find this out. Like we can't be kept in the dark forever, our sense of being able to pursuit of happiness, we need to know. Like we need to know what the world really is, can't keep it hidden forever.
Speaker 2:Right, and I mean there really is no information that is unknown forever generally.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, everything comes out so. So what I find interesting is when I think about disclosure and I might I might do a little a little episode on this on my own, but I've been thinking about it a lot. You know, disclosure is not an event. Everybody thinks a disclosure is when the president comes out and announces to the world hey, there's UFOs. Disclosure is a process. That's probably the end of the process, like at that point everybody knows. But if you're being smart and you want to roll this out, it could not be the end of the process.
Speaker 1:Well, it could be, but it's towards the end, when everybody knows, at that point you're, you're, you've disclosed, yes, but before that, when not everybody knows, you're in different stages, and so the question is how do you let some of the population know while not letting all of the population know? Because if you're letting you think that's how it would have to go, well, I think it's just going that way, naturally. How do you do that, though, with the way information Well, who's the first group of people who are more likely to know is the military, because when you see all these high level military people come out like Colonel, right, his resume is impressive to us, but if you're in the military and you know what all those things mean, it's probably way more impressive. Like you and I don't know every little thing of like when he says I was, you know this, I was that, and we're like, oh, that sounds impressive. We don't actually know what it is Right, but somebody who knows what that is goes oh my God, carl Nell, are you kidding me? He's a, a colonel, he's, he's had access that you know, only few people have. He's, you know. So it's almost like that's happened is more likely military people who look at the people who are saying it and hold them in high regard are going, wow, there's really something to this, whereas the general public is going, all right, that's sounds impressive. But it can also not be impressive. Oh, you were in the army, were you in the motor pool? It's like you could make it non-impressive.
Speaker 1:But those who know know. So that's the first group that you have to let know. Another group you have to let know is religious people, a little harder, but again, you can't tell one group without potentially telling all the groups. But one way you can do that is you modulate the message through the voice that's going to be most believed by the group you're trying to reach. So military is going to be first anyway, because it's military people who are coming out. So military people are going to hear other military people and know oh my God, there's someone. I should listen to.
Speaker 1:General public, some are going to believe it, some are not. This seems like the next stage. This seems like the. Now we got to tell the money people. So we get this guy up in front of money people and say, hey, this is going on, and again your average citizen might hear it and go all right, there was some financial convention and some guy from the military said there's UFOs, okay, I still don't believe it. Whereas the people in the room with him and go oh my God, this guy is a heavy hitter and he just told us that. And last year when I came here, there was a Stanford microbiologist who said it very plainly.
Speaker 1:So that, to me, is the way you get like the general populace. They're the last ones you need to get on board. They're the most troublesome because they're the ones that, when they learn, could throw things off the rails if everybody rebels and they're not going to believe until the media tells them. A lot of people are not going to believe it until CNN or MSbc or fox news or whatever it is comes on and says, hey, this stuff's real. And that's kind of the last thing you want to happen because you want everyone else in place, right? Because if you have, if religious people know, if military people know, if the money people are already comfortable with it. Then when the general populace finds out, it's a little easier to deal with because you're not trying to calm them down. While you're trying to calm the military down and the religious people down and the money people down, you've already taken care of them, not all of them, but the ones that matter, and so you're letting the people in last.
Speaker 1:That's my theory anyway. I don't think it's necessarily planned. I just think that's the way it's rolling out. Is it's just? Different groups are getting it and, little by little, and other groups are hearing it as well, but they don't know that the message is right because they don't see. You know who the speaker is?
Speaker 2:I don't know, that's my thought anyway, you could also look at it. I think that is a pretty good theory, but I think it doesn't have to be linear. You could have more than one thing happening, of course. Yeah, right, the general population. With the way information is being disseminated, you could be say that we're being conditioned to accept.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and maybe we have been for a long time. Maybe we have been for a very long time. I find it very interesting that um steven spielberg is getting back into a ufo alien movie oh really 2025 and he's calling it an event picture.
Speaker 2:What are you talking about? Oh, like, that movie's going to be about an event.
Speaker 1:Not necessarily. Is that what you mean? The movie itself is an event, like, if you think about it, spielberg hasn't been directly involved in any of these things since, like Close Encounters of the Third Kind and ET, any movies that amblin entertainment did or any documentaries on ufos.
Speaker 2:Spielberg's name was like attached because he's the company right, but or you mean his direct involvement in a movie, but he didn't have to direct it. He didn't direct it.
Speaker 1:He might have been, you know, involved he directed other types of things. You're right, and this is the first time he's coming back to. Hey, I'm gonna do it an alien ufo movie and it's gonna be an event picture, meaning that the movie itself is an event. It's not. It's not that the movie's based on an event necessarily, I think. It's just that, like this is gonna be a big deal. I got because I'm not just cranking out a movie, I'm gonna put it out quietly.
Speaker 1:There's gonna be some pomp and circumstance and I'm thinking to myself all right, do you know, something like do you know that by then jay allen hynek, who we mentioned earlier, was in close encounters of the third kind? He was among the scientists, he did a cameo and he was among the scientists who were waiting there at the end when the ship, you know, when they were all looking at the ship, and he has connections spielberg has connections with people who are in the know.
Speaker 2:He had somebody kind of play his part. I have a feeling he knows.
Speaker 1:Yeah, he had somebody else, but it's just interesting that he he's someone who, if someone in the entertainment industry is going to know, I'd put Spielberg pretty high on that list. Yeah.
Speaker 1:He has a lot of credibility and just the fact that he's picking now to get back into it. Yeah, to get back into it. Yeah, I'm going to put out a UFO, alien picture and it's going to be an event. It's not just going to be ET part two or Close Encounters part two. He's going to break new ground. Who knows, maybe he's going to dip into the taboo topic of abductions, which we'll talk about at some point.
Speaker 2:But I mean, that's Nobody really talks about that.
Speaker 1:It's because the implications of it are scary.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean, the implications are that we can't be protected.
Speaker 1:Right, and how do you tell people that? That's another one of those questions. So aliens and UFOs are real? Government? You're telling us that, right? What about abductions? Are those real? Yeah, I guess they are All right. So there's something coming and taking citizens and you can't protect us, right? Yeah, I guess that's kind of it. There's no way to tell you the first part without you inferring the second part, and that's again going to lead to collapse. I find this all to be interesting. Yeah, there was more, but I think that's a good place to kind of end this episode.
Speaker 2:We're hitting the-. We went over a lot of stuff and there's a lot more to go over. So we and there's a lot more to go over. So we're going to have to come back to this soon, I think.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think I like what we've been doing lately. Like you suggested, we take a little break from UFOs because I know sometimes people out there you know I love UFOs and I'll talk about it all the time, but people want some variety and I understand and there's lots of interesting things to talk about and some of them even touch on the UFO subject without necessarily being right there. I'd love to talk about Skinwalker Ranch at some point. I'd love to talk about abductions and just look into that a little bit and crop circles. That's another interesting one.
Speaker 4:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Well, crop circles is such a visual medium. I feel like that might be one if we ever go over to video. Right, do some video, because you need to see some of this stuff. Yeah, just talking about it it's not the same. Can't really describe a really good circle, but I don't know. I think this was good. I hope you're out there. You know that it opened your mind up a little bit to say that there's something going on.
Speaker 2:Oh, there's definitely something. What it is is open right now.
Speaker 1:There's something going on here what it is ain't exactly clear as the song says but no, it's, I don't know. There's a man with a ray gun over there telling me to beware ray gun. Anyway, anyway, uh, anyway, that was good, good discussion and, uh, we look forward to doing it again and until next time, I'm this is chris and I'm steve, and this has been some deep shit. We'll be you next time.
