(Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve
(Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve
(Not So) Deep Sh*t on Mysterious Drones in the Skies
It's been awhile since our last episode, and we've gone long in this one! But there's LOTS to talk about, so we dig into the drones and how it relates to the UAP subject. Buckle up for an extended discussion on everything that's been going on in our skies!
Could these car-sized drones and unidentified flying objects in the skies over New Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia be the keys to unraveling a cosmic mystery? As reports of these enigmatic sightings flood in, we navigate the fascinating theories swirling around them—from foreign military technology to a gradual extraterrestrial revelation. We tackle the perplexing responses from federal agencies and skepticism among local officials, who insist they've seen these phenomena firsthand. Our conversation raises crucial questions: Are these sightings a national security concern, or do they point to a deeper, non-human intelligence at work?
Amidst a growing whirlwind of speculation, the Northeast finds itself at the epicenter of a much larger narrative. We dissect reports of drones defying FAA regulations and flying untraceable, silent formations near sensitive areas. With an abundance of visual evidence captured by the public, demands for transparency mount. Our discussions traverse the intriguing possibilities—from the unnerving prospect of government disinformation to the tantalizing notion of extraterrestrial entities slowly pulling back the curtain on their existence. Whether it's international espionage or something far more extraordinary, the urgency for clear answers grows ever stronger.
Join us as we explore the shifting dynamics of public perception and media coverage in response to these sightings. With firsthand accounts and expert insights, we ponder the government's curious silence and the broader implications of potential extraterrestrial contact. While mainstream media remains cautious, the call for disclosure resonates louder than ever. Could this be the beginning of a new era of understanding our place in the cosmos, or is it merely the continuation of a complex aerial enigma? Tune in to embark on this captivating journey and engage with the myriad questions these mysterious phenomena provoke.
Contact Us:
Twitter: @NotSoDeepShit
Facebook.com/NSDSChrisandSteve
Instagram.com/nsdschrisandsteve
Email: nsdschrisandsteve@gmail.com
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!
I'm Chris, I'm Steve, and we're talking about some deep shit and we're back to talk about some more deep shit. How's it going, steve? Chris, how you doing? Good, good, I'm not going to even bother promising that we're going to get on schedule for episodes on a regular basis, because I just feel like any promises I make in that regard are not going to hold, because I think numerous times I've been like we're going to get on a regular schedule and we're going to. We're going to be really, we were for a little while and then and then we fell off. Things happen, yeah. So I think for now, what's going to happen is, at least for the for the time being, we will do episodes whenever we can do episodes. If we can get ahead, we will. But I don't want to promise that just because I feel like our promises are just in vain.
Speaker 2:So, at least that might be true, but with some of the stuff happening right now, which is December 14th, yeah, saturday the 14th, right, yeah, yeah, remember that movie.
Speaker 1:Yes, I do.
Speaker 2:I think it was Jeff Goldblum.
Speaker 1:It was yes, right, and another guy.
Speaker 2:Amongst others. Right, I think somebody that actually got in trouble. But anyway, I think Ed Begley Jr Wasn't he in that, but maybe I'm crazy.
Speaker 1:He was. I don't think he's the one that got in trouble. I thought he did. There's another guy too, and I can picture his face, but I can't think of. Anyway, we are in very busy, busy, what's?
Speaker 2:happening.
Speaker 1:Yeah, this has been one of the most active end of the year, like last month or so, for UFO, the UFO topic, uap, whatever you want to say and culminating with this, drones. So why don't we start there and we'll work our way backwards, because drones is the most prevalent of things. So when did you first become aware of this going on?
Speaker 2:Maybe sometime around Thanksgiving or so, maybe a little bit before that. I'm trying to remember.
Speaker 4:But at first, it seemed well, what is this?
Speaker 2:exactly, and, as of our discussion right now, it's gotten to the point where a lot of people, a lot of people, are wondering what this is.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I don't have a prediction on where this is going, but I can't see this just going away Like no matter what. The answer is. Well, let's catch people up, just in case they don't know what's going on. Just in case they don't know what's going on. So this started about mid-November, where there started being reports of large, unidentified drones appearing during the nighttime in Morris and Somerset counties of New Jersey. And then, around November 18th, there started being more reports, some described as car-sized or SUV-sized drones. Right, you see that a lot. And then you know, as it got into late November, notably Thanksgiving, which was the oddest thing. It didn't happen on Thanksgiving Day, it happened up until the day before.
Speaker 2:Is that true?
Speaker 1:Whatever these things are, seemed to take anything, seem to take thanksgiving off. Well, everybody needs a break, right, which is again the weirdest thing. And then it came. And then it came right back the next day. Um, now sightings are in you know, a lot of the new jersey counties bergen county, essex, hunterdon, passaic, sussex and Warren counties and it supposedly has spread to New York City, new York, philadelphia, connecticut. I've heard some reports about Cape Cod. Now, that being said, and I think this has been brought up a few times, everyone's looking up at the sky, everyone is looking for these things and there are probably a lot of misidentifications of planes and other things that do make sense. Like I always say when I do my UFO talks, I always have to point out that thing. About 95% to 98% of everything that spot can in the air can have a reasonable explanation.
Speaker 1:You know, people misidentify stuff all the time planet, venus, planes. I've often said you know you'd be surprised in the middle of the day seeing an airplane flying, but you're catching it from a weird angle, you know, from like where it's flying in the sky to where you're looking at it and the way the sunlight might be glinting off it can honestly make you think for a few seconds that you're seeing something really unusual and it can look like what is that? And then if you watch it for a few more minutes, then you, oh okay, I can see it. Now it's a, it's a plane, but sometimes you know just the angle. See it, now it's a, it's a plane, but sometimes you know just the angle. So I do know that there's a lot of misidentification of things, but that's not all of it.
Speaker 2:And um, I would say it's probably not the majority of it.
Speaker 3:Yeah, look at the just again, I don't know because every sighting, doesn't?
Speaker 2:they don't show a video of every sighting, but the some of the videos they're showing. It doesn't look like anything except a large drone Right.
Speaker 4:Yeah, but again I don't, again not every sighting has a video.
Speaker 1:Right, there's a lot though, what I'm starting to see on the news channels as I watched this yesterday you know, I've been driving, driving my wife Rosie like crazy because I've just been like my face implanted.
Speaker 1:No, like crazy, because I've just been like my face implanted. No, I can't imagine, chris, you know like I'm. I'm going from my phone to my ipad and then, you know, sometimes I have it up on the tv as well and I want to like have like the different news channels, because yesterday all day I was like just monitoring the cable channels and I've always said, you know, news nation does a great job of reporting this stuff. But let's face face it, news Nation is like they're a new cable network. They're good on them for doing it. But what the true benchmark is is when do the conventional news channels CNN, msnbc, fox News to a certain extent, and then CBS, nbc, abc, like those main channels are picking this up now?
Speaker 2:Have you noticed something I have, and it's just an aside, because we, you know, we say Fox News and we have our own thoughts on it. We say different news channels. Everybody has their thoughts. Since the last presidential election I'm not making this political I've noticed a different tone in the mainstream news. It's getting more neutral. I don't know if you've noticed it, but I have yeah, I think.
Speaker 1:I think that well, I mean, they're gonna have to deal with with, with the administration that's coming one way the other and I guess they don't want to start off on an adversarial right, so trying to pull back the other thing that's happening with this. Um, I mean, you, you like to hope that these kind of topics don't get politicized, but to a certain extent I take fox news's coverage of this with a bit of a grain of salt, only because they're using it as a great opportunity to to attack the current administration. Do you know, like, oh, yeah. So that's where I kind of like, okay, it's good that they're covering it and it's not all of it, because, again, even with that there's, they're doing good work. But also there's a little bit of that edge of like okay, you guys, the only reason why you're really hammering on this is because you see it as an opportunity to attack the current administration. But that doesn't explain why MSNBC, cnn, abc, like all the like, they're covering it as well and they're equally perplexed.
Speaker 1:So so I want to play this real quick, because this is John Kirby and he's the, the White House, like the military spokesperson, and he was asked about. Well, he had a press conference and he did a little talk on these drones and this is what he said. This is only about a minute long. We'll play this and then we'll talk about, because this was I believe this might have been wednesday, I think when this uh, wednesday or thursday when, when he made this thing. So we'll, let's listen to this now.
Speaker 4:finally, I just want to add a few comments on the reports of drone activity here on the east coast, particularly in and around new. We have no evidence at this time that the reported drone sightings pose a national security or a public safety threat or have a foreign nexus. The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI are investigating these sightings and they're working closely with state and local law enforcement to provide resources using numerous detection methods to better understand their origin, using very sophisticated electronic detection technologies provided by federal authorities. We have not been able to, and neither have state or local law enforcement authorities, corroborate any of the reported visual sightings. To the contrary, upon review of available imagery, it appears that many of the reported sightings are actually manned aircraft that are being operated lawfully. The United States Coast Guard is providing support to the state of New Jersey and has confirmed that there is no evidence of any foreign-based involvement from coastal vessels and, importantly, there are no reported or confirmed drone sightings in any restricted airspace. That's it.
Speaker 1:All right. So first of all, there's several of those boldface lies there. What?
Speaker 2:are the lies.
Speaker 1:The lies are. He said that we have not. We, along with state and local officials, have not been able to corroborate any of these sightings. He's gaslighting. He's basically saying we haven't been able to corroborate these sightings. And when the reporters asked him about this, he said well, we're just going off of the cell phone footage. And it's like well, you don't have your own footage of it? He's like nope, we're just working off of the available images that people are sending us.
Speaker 2:It's a lot of. I don't know if I'd go out and say call it lies, chris. It's a lot of wordplay.
Speaker 1:Well, no, because he says that state and local officials haven't corroborated it. But that's in direct contradiction to those state and local officials who have corroborated it.
Speaker 2:I think it's disingenuous because I think what if you listen to his words? Disingenuous because I think what if you listen to his words? We along with. So you know.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you could make. Yeah, you could make-.
Speaker 2:That's what they're doing.
Speaker 1:You're right, it is complicated wordplay, but that one's a little a stretch too far If he said we, the federal government-.
Speaker 4:It's very misleading.
Speaker 1:Have not been able to corroborate any of this. I still find that misleading. But the fact that he said local and state officials haven't been able to corroborate this, that's false. He also said these have not been in any restricted airspace, again in direct contradiction to what has come out of the actual basis in oh, I agree, in new jersey. Those actual things have said we've had multiple incursions. So again, what?
Speaker 2:what does corroborate mean?
Speaker 1:so um what he's saying he was saying that basically none of these sightings that people supposedly have of these objects are corroborated, because the ones we've looked at we could explain them all. So he's really trying to say people are overreacting, people are not seeing something weird, it's just baloney. And then, well, that caused a firestorm. From the New Jersey state reps, the mayors.
Speaker 2:So how about the guy? Right, and we'll just jump to it. Right, just corroborate, right, because what does that mean to him? I'm not sure. What does it mean? I don't know, and I don't like it when the government is trying to play little fast ones with their word play with us.
Speaker 2:Right, but the the Senator from New Jersey, andy Kim, right, yes, he says, listen, I was looking at them myself. He took a video at least one of them so and he said, um, I had my flight tracker app that tracks all commercial flights and those things weren't on there. That sounds like he's corroborated the fact that it's not a commercial flight. So what is it? The FAA should know what it is.
Speaker 1:That's the other thing that's getting me about this whole thing.
Speaker 1:It's the feigned incompetence. It's the feigned well, we don't know what it is. Oh, if only we knew what it was. Are you telling me, like, why is it? Sometimes we get these crystal clear pictures of, like hey, a Russian jet zoomed by one of our you know, one of our Air Force jets, you know that's happened a couple times. Or a Chinese, they got too close right. Our you know one of our Air Force jets, you know that's happened a couple times. Or Chinese, they got too close right. And we see these really crystal clear pictures of you know, haven't you heard, I know, I've heard you know different bragging that? Hey, you know we have systems that could spot a softball from you know size objects from outer space, you know satellites, and like we apparently have all this massive detection equipment right in which we spend billions and billions of dollars on each year. But then this happens and they act like, wow, we just we haven't been able to get it out there. And this was the other thing that got me.
Speaker 1:Wednesday there was a meeting, so the New Jersey locals were getting, all the people were calling their elected officials, and so on Wednesday, the governor and the FBI who, apparently the FBI, was in charge of this investigation of the drones, right? So the mayor, I mean the governor and the FBI they were going to have this meeting and they invited all like 100 and something mayors of New Jersey to come, and so a lot of them did like most of them did. It was like the most amazing thing. They said this has never happened before, where they got all of us together in a room. The governor didn't show up for that meeting and neither did the FBI, so they were talking to the head of the state police, who had no answers, and so a couple of these mayors walked out of that meeting.
Speaker 1:There was one what was he? Assemblyman or something like that. He was just so funny. He walked out and he just said this was the biggest waste of time. I drove two hours to get here and now I'm going to have to drive two hours home. This was the biggest waste of five hours in my life. This could have been an email. They brought us all in here to say that they don't know anything, and a couple things that came out of that meeting is, he said, the state police you know, head of the state police basically said they had a helicopter over one of these drones and they said it was a six foot drone.
Speaker 1:They had the helicopter land, come back because, and and they said that they were worried for the safety of the helicopter and the pilots in it. Right, and then he said a few minutes later, in that same meeting, he said, well, if only we knew where these things were coming from. And they were like, well, why didn't you just follow it back? Like, how hard is it to figure out where these drones are coming from? And that's the thing. It's the feigned incompetence of like, well, there's a small object. How are we supposed to do it? Are you kidding me? Are you really saying that there's no way to track these objects? Like it's this? And they said, okay, we're going to give you some great equipment that's going to help. And then they said, okay, when are we going to get this? Oh, in a couple of days.
Speaker 1:Now, I worked at a publishing company years ago. Right, there were times that I had to get a pallet of books from our warehouse in Indiana to a book event in California, and I was able to get that pallet of books there overnight for an event the next day. Are you really telling me that the federal government could not have gotten that equipment there same day if they wanted to, wherever the equipment was, unless this equipment is kept on the other side of the world, and even then it should only take how long it takes a flight to get from the other side of the world to here. It's only going to be so long. Like it's that feigned incompetence that is just driving me nuts. So they're still waiting for the supposed equipment that's going to help them.
Speaker 1:Why? Why wasn't that given immediately? First of all, why isn't any of the military bases around here? Like there's no way that they don't have the ability to track these things. There's no way that they unless they can. But if they're saying, well, we just need the right equipment to be shipped here, that doesn't make any sense. If you just think about it for two seconds, like, wait a second, you're telling me that that's not anywhere within a, let's even say, a six-hour flight. You really can't get that equipment here. We're going to have to wait several days for it. That like there's something smelly about this and I think everybody's catching it at this point.
Speaker 2:Right, just to back up a little bit for someone that might not have an idea exactly what we're talking about. Between what is it? Usually it seems to be between about 6 and 11 pm. It seems that that's when most of these sightings are happening, as soon as the sun sets Right. Yeah, and they are. When I say they, these drones, the videos I've seen. They almost look like small jets small planes. Right Right, but they're too small that a person could be driving it, driving piloting it. So they have red and green lights, correct?
Speaker 2:Yes, and there's an issue. There's a question because that's the FAA regulations, but there's a question as to whether or not they are in compliance with the regulations on these lights right, and people are watching them go back and forth, back and forth, and some people are seeing them over water sources like reservoirs. Some people say they see them over. Well, they were seen in an area of northeastern part of New Jersey. It's called Picatini Arsenal. It's a military research and manufacturing facility. They're seeing them around these types of things, maybe other things too, and, like we talked about, it's kind of spreading across the northeast and, of course, that's causing a lot of alarm for people because they keep seeing these and nobody has an answer for them. It's kind of alarming me. Alarm might not be the right word, but I'm saying to myself how far is this going to spread? What is it?
Speaker 2:And to your point about tracing them, there have been some discussions that sometimes well, this is the kind of weird thing they're saying that these drones are not giving off a radio frequency, which is generally what has to happen if they're being done remotely. There has to be a radio frequency. They're not giving one off, which doesn't mean it's alien. It doesn't mean that, but it means it's something sophisticated and they're saying because it's not giving off some sort of radio frequency. I'm not, this isn't my thing, but it's. They said because of that they're difficult to track. They'd have to actually track it physically and no one's done that yet. But that's another.
Speaker 1:That's another, that's another because it's not coming up on radar, but that's another right, that's another misleading, that that's the only way.
Speaker 1:oh, if it's not transmitting, therefore, the only way we can track it is visually. Well, that's what they're saying, right, but there's multiple ways to track drones. First of all, there's the signal that they're, that they're a lot. First of all, there's the signal that, if these drones are being controlled that's what a drone is A drone is something that is controlled remotely, which means there has to be a signal going from wherever they're controlled from to the device. You should be able to detect that signal. That's first of all. Well, maybe, if our military should be able to detect every signal going, there shouldn't be a secret signal that our military can't detect, like, that's the thing, it's a signal. Then there's radar. There's just regular old radar, so there's that. Then, of course, there's the thing how do we detect the sub? Remember the what do you call it? That sub thing that went down to go see the titanic? Then, right, imploding, right, they did that by sound.
Speaker 1:you can detect things via sound so he's not giving off some of these things, but some of them are giving off you could hear it in the videos, but then others are not right, and that's the thing it's, and sometimes they don't have the lights on, sometimes they don't. Sometimes, and again, some people describe these as smaller drones, but then other people say, well, no, some smaller ones, but there's other ones that are described as suv size right.
Speaker 2:So that's the problem. I think there are drones people just use, right.
Speaker 1:But none of these drones. Are that no?
Speaker 1:no, when they say the small ones, it could be I'm, that people are, and that's one of the things the New Jersey officials are asking for is okay, close off all the airspace to all drones. Just say hey, for the next two weeks. Yeah, why don't they just do that? That's a good question, right? Because that would certainly solve it. If you said, okay, as of today, you are not allowed to fly a drone, and if you caught flying a drone, drone, we're going to prosecute you and then wait until those drones pop up and say, okay, now they're breaking the law. And also there's this line that keeps being trotted out about how these drones are not breaking the law, but they are. If you're not supposed to operate drones at night, like that's, that's against the rules. You're not supposed to operate a drone from from sunset to sunrise. You're not supposed to operate a drone from sunset to sunrise. You're not supposed to be doing that. And most drones, especially larger ones, you're supposed to file a flight plan with the FAA If it's over a certain size. And only the very small drones, like the little ones you can get at, like Walmart, those are the only ones that don't apply. Anything large, certainly anything the size of an SUV or a small car, you would be legally obligated to file a flight plan and they also, you know, tell me that they can't.
Speaker 1:When you say, okay, how come you haven't taken one of these things down, they immediately go to well, we can't, can't shoot it down in a, in a area, you know, one. These things have been seen all over. You're telling me that they're they're never seen over an area where, theoretically, you could take it down and it couldn't hurt anybody. From what our understanding of there have been multiple times they've been seen over the ocean. Surely, you could take it down into the ocean. It's not going to hurt anybody. And also, you don't have to shoot a drone down.
Speaker 1:There are other ways to get a drone down. As a matter of fact, the military has these really cool things that are like a signal that if a regular drone, if you were flying a regular drone, or even, like a some you know, a higher end drone, if you were flying in a military base, they can point a thing at it and it it basically kills all signals going to that drone. It makes that drone land. Like they have this technology, they've utilized this technology. It's not hard to go look back and see in the last few years where they've used that technology.
Speaker 1:Somebody flies a drone, they catch it right away. It's the feigned incompetence of saying, well, well, we just can't do it, well, we, we, we lost. You know they're not giving off a signal, so I guess the only way we can do is to track them at home, you know, track them physically and when, and then they shut their lights off and we can't detect them. It's, it's not plausible that two things, one of two things either they do know what they are and they're choosing not to tell us, or they don't know what they are.
Speaker 2:Either one of those is frightening right and I think that, um, we need to mention that there's sight, there are sightings, um, about things like this that are now coming in all over the world, and I'm not trying to you know again, they could be um misidentification, whatever it could be because of people seeing it on the news. These things happen, but it can't be every one of them. They're finding them in the Midwest. There are military people saying they're seeing it off the coast of California. There are reports in England. There's reports in Germany.
Speaker 2:There's reports all around and it's all happening at around the same time.
Speaker 1:And it's not new. This is also has been happening for a few months now. Yes, in uk also, um langley air force base. End of last year, for 17 straight days, drones were over langley bay, the air force base, like langley, virginia 17 days. They've never solved that. 2019. Apparently there was a big spate of quote unquote drones in Colorado and those have never been solved. And how about?
Speaker 2:the time? Was that the Nimitz? No, what was the boat? The ship where they had them at night, with the night vision above the drones?
Speaker 1:It was off the coast of California. Yeah, was that the one? The? It just popped into my head and they said we think those were drones. It was off the coast of California.
Speaker 2:Yeah, was that the one, the it just popped into my head and they said we think those were drones, but they never. Why were they flying over a military vessel?
Speaker 1:The way you, the way the debunkers work and this is just a very interesting is, you can take anything in isolation and come up with a plausible answer, and that's one of the things debunkers do frequently. They don't actually debunk it. What they do is they'll look at it and say well, that could plausibly be this, right, therefore it's solved, right. No evidence that that's what that is. They just do that. And it's a similar thing like this Could you pick any particular one and say this one is probably a plane, this one is probably a plane, this one is probably that Okay, maybe, maybe you can, but what do you do when the people who filmed it say no, I have lived in this area my whole life. I have seen many planes coming in. I know what planes look like. I, you know. That's. The thing is, this is not just being taken by any normal people. Sometimes you have politicians, sometimes you have drone experts.
Speaker 2:I've noticed in the news, chris, they're putting drone experts on, and I think that's what's going to cause a problem for the government in terms of the military, what they're going to say to the American people, because these drone experts are basically saying these things shouldn't be happening. Without an explanation. None of this should be happening.
Speaker 1:Some are. Some are downplaying it. It's very interesting to watch that.
Speaker 2:Just to watch, just out of 10, if three or four say this shouldn't be happening, it makes me say why is it happening?
Speaker 1:A lot of them say I don't understand why you can't track these back to its source. Right, that should have been done day one. And the excuse of like well, they just go dark. We can't detect them. Oh, we can't. You know, like, really, like that can't be. So I want to play another. This is one that really gets me.
Speaker 1:So News Nation has been covering this and last night this is the one that blew me away, away. They were talking to one of their reporters who saw it, uh, saw it himself, and what was really interesting is is and I'm not gonna play the whole thing because this is a long segment, but I'm just gonna play the first part of it, where they talk to their reporter. Then they also talk to two other people who are normally on um news nation to talk about like crime and stuff. So they're like known people to them who just so happened to see these, and so we'll hear the one from the first guy. But then they talked to this other woman and she corroborates that. And then the third guy, who's like in Tennessee, he says no, that's not what I'm seeing at all. What I'm seeing is like he's describing like a saucer shaped.
Speaker 1:It's the craziest thing, but listen to what I haven't heard. Listen to what this reporter says. This is just crazy.
Speaker 5:Okay, but wait, get that unexplained phenomena, and they're not just any witnesses, but three names that we all know very well. People that I know well and trust are my, my friends. News Nation correspondent Rich McHugh happened to be with New Jersey police last night, out doing the job when he spotted the drones. We've got Dr Catherine Ramsland, forensic psychologist. This woman doesn't lie. She writes the books, by the way, she saw the drones two nights in a row. She's known here for taking us inside the mind of serial killers. She saw half a dozen drones in Pennsylvania. I also want to welcome Scott Rouse, our go-to behavioral and body language expert. I know Scott well. He tells the truth. He saw the drones over Tennessee. I mean, look at these three, I've all seen them. What is going on? I want to start with Rich McHugh, though, because Rich you were out on the story last night.
Speaker 1:Didn't know what to expect. I take it from there.
Speaker 6:I mean what happened? He started talking. This Mike was top. I've been skeptical of this story as a resident of New Jersey, as a journalist here, I thought it was going to be some sort of Yahoo and we would get a laugh out of this in several weeks. What happened yesterday completely changed my entire view on this story.
Speaker 6:Earlier in the afternoon I was out with the Ocean City Sheriff's Department. They have a drone unit. They've investigated these things. What they saw a bunch over the weekend. We did not see any with them. Last night I was coming back home, I got a tip Monmouth County. They're spotting them in Monmouth County. That's where I live.
Speaker 6:So I raced up here and I tried to figure out where the picture was that somebody sent me and sure enough I saw one. So I trailed it to a neighborhood, dead End Street, and I got out of my car and I took my phone out with, you know, my iPhone, and I couldn't really capture it. But I was staring literally at this drone 200 feet above me, maybe. I called our photographer, nick, and I said get up here as soon as you possibly can meet me at this location, et cetera. I tracked a few more to the location where we are right now, over a body of water behind us, and I got to say, brian, over the next two hours we saw dozens and dozens of these things and they look like nothing you've ever seen before.
Speaker 6:I'm not even sure I'm right in calling them a drone. You know they looked like they were fixed wing aircraft. They had multiple you know blinking lights. They did not look anything like a plane, because there's plenty of planes flying overhead, like tonight. They're not here. We're, we're seeing just planes. Last night it was totally different. They look creepy and they move at a different pace. We tried to even follow a couple. They went off in the distance and disappeared. Uh, it's completely rewired my brain on this topic and I'm I'm a believer and we need answers, uh, and we don't have, uh, we don't have answers and we need someone to step up and say here is what's going on. Um, because otherwise, like we're heading down this path in new jersey, in these states, where, uh, people are just going to take this into their own hands yeah, and I'm looking at your video right now.
Speaker 5:We have it in the middle of the screen. I know it's tough at night, um, when you're using your eye filter and it's pitch black. You said you were near the water, but so it it's kind of hard to see, uh. But you know, we've heard these reports from people. But hearing it from you, rich, as our investigative reporter, knowing you, knowing the kind of work you do, it is kind of freaky to hear you say that it, um, that that you couldn't identify it. Describe it a little more. I mean, how big. And you know, when I think of a drone, you think of like the. You know it's got the four. It's almost like a little helicopter with the four rotors. Are these not? Do these look different than that?
Speaker 6:they look different. They almost look like like a u-shaped or v-shapes. Uh, they didn't make a sound. It was, you know, a couple hundred feet above us. They um, you just didn't know what you were looking at. It was moving across the sky very quietly and we were. We kept saying to each other, like nick and I like what are we looking at? Like are you getting the shot? And what the heck are we filming? Um, there's a couple shots you can see where you can see that it's fixed wing and it doesn't look like a plane, it almost looks like inverted. Um, it sounds crazy.
Speaker 6:As I say this now, brian, like that, that's what you're seeing on the screen. That's what we were seeing right above our heads and it happened till about 11 30 at night and then it started to like die off and I was like we can stay out here all night. But I went to bed. This is my community. I've never seen these things in the sky over my community before. I went to bed thinking like this is wild. These things are flying over our, over our homes, over our residences. There's a military earl which is a munitions depot, just like about a mile and a half behind me. They've reported sightings of these things above and they said they're ready to take action if they need to.
Speaker 1:So yeah, I mean, but you can hear in his voice that he's shook because he's saying I didn't believe this when this all started. And then he sees it with his own eyes and the thing that really struck me is he said I don't know what we were looking at. The fact it didn't make a sound, and that's the other thing that's weird about this. Sometimes these things make noise, but sometimes they don't, and sometimes the noise doesn't seem right for what it is. It's just, I don't know what this could possibly be. I don't know.
Speaker 2:Well, I think that it's one of a few things, most likely One it could be a foreign military, right? I mean, who would have that kind of technology? Maybe Russia or China? Right, I think there's reasons why that's not the case. I think that it could be something not of this earth, that's a possibility, right? I think that it could be something not of this earth, that's a possibility, right. And it's some sort of reconnaissance type of deal. Who knows what exactly is happening? And I think there's some things that possibly give that a little boost. Some of the reports I've seen. One report I saw, chris, was that they actually saw up to 50 of them coming from the ocean. Yeah, and so then the coast guard went out there and there's no reports as to where these came from. Right, so either we're just not being I mean, there's two options one that they can't find where it's coming from, or or two, they're just not going to tell you, Right, right?
Speaker 1:And that's also assuming that the government is a big monolith, which we know it isn't. The government is not a monolith. When you say the government knows this, the government knows that there are parts of the government that probably know what these things are. Oh yeah, I don't mean the government, but at least the forward-facing to us, someone that's the spokesperson of something telling the American people, that's crazy too, because the Pentagon has said explicitly they don't think it's a foreign actor, right, but they also say it's not them.
Speaker 2:Well, you know what is this? Their joint statement? They put out yeah, right, it's more just wordplay, right when you read it, and the part about it being that they haven't found any credible evidence that it's a threat, but they don't know what it is right. Well, what does?
Speaker 2:that even mean and I those two things cannot be true but you can't say I don't know what it is, but I know it's not bad, right? Well, how do you know it's not bad if you don't know what it is? Well, because it's comforting to hear that. Yeah that. That's really what it is.
Speaker 1:There's no. Like you're right, Like how can you say those two things cannot be true at the same time. No, you can't say we don't know what it is, who it is, where it's coming from, what they're doing. We have no idea.
Speaker 2:But, on the other hand, we can assure you that there's no danger and there was a great because if all, let's just say they could tell there's no web, there's no ability to weaponize those things, what their activity could be could be dangerous to us. So, like there's no, if you don't know where it's coming from, you don't know what it is. You can't turn around and say now you can, they're obviously doing it, but with any credibility, well, and also, uh, nothing to worry about. Yeah, well, I mean it. Just it seems classic, uh, de-escalation, it's gaslighting is what it is.
Speaker 1:It's, it's, it's you know what? Uh, one of the um, new jersey may. He had a great point. He said by their very existence they're a danger, because these things are big and they're flying around above us. So let's just say they're not here for malicious intent. But one of them has mechanical failure and plummets to the earth. He said that's going to hurt people, so you can't tell us they're not a danger. Just being up there is a danger, because if one of these things came down, people could get really hurt. So that excuse of they're not a threat, you can't even say that. Could you say well, we suspect they're not an immediate threat. Okay, sure, but what if just an accident happens? Like these things are not broadcasting, right? You've told us that. You've told us that you can't detect them. So doesn't that mean that a plane could hit them?
Speaker 2:It's kind of weird, if you think about it, that if this was happening in the summertime, I don't think I think that there'd be I don't want to call it hysteria, but I want to say there'd be a quicker outcry of people because everyone's outside all the time, but I do think if this happened 25 years ago, before cell phones and all that there'd be even more.
Speaker 2:There'd be more. This wouldn't be able to go on this long. A lot of people are just concerned with you. Know they work at home, they stay home. There's a lot of people are just concerned with you, know they work at home, they stay home. There's a lot of people that just they don't give a crap about any of this stuff, and I think that. But as what I mean is there's still a point that we're going to get to, and we're getting there right now, and it's just going to keep amplifying. If there's no answers here, because there's only so long, people say, hey, have they figured out what's flying above us? It's kind of crazy.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I mean 25 years ago actually. I'll take issue with that, because I think there have been UFO flaps and before the advent of cell phones and cameras and all that, it'd be very easy to dismiss. You can see them trying it now and the only thing that's stopping them from being able to dismiss it is the fact that so many people have footage of it. This is what I've been waiting for is like something where multiple people have footage of the same event, because a lot of times you see UFO videos out of context and it's like one video of something that looks strange and it's like okay, one video, I can't. I'm not going to say it's fake, but I'm also not going to say it's real. One video, I can't. I'm not going to say it's fake, but I'm also not going to say it's real. What I need to see is I need to see six videos from different angles, from different points of view, all filming the same event. Then you can say, all right, it makes it harder, like, could it be faked? Sure, but you'd have to really be good to fake. You know, six different camera angles and that's what we're getting is we're getting masses of cell phone footage.
Speaker 1:The other thing that makes it hard is, I think people overestimate. They take a picture with their iPhone, they take a selfie and or with their Android right, and they see how good it comes out. And then they say, well, why can't you get good pictures? And if you've ever tried to take your phone and take a picture of just a plane, try taking a picture in the daytime of a plane flying high in the sky. You've got to zoom in. And once you zoom in, you have no control. You have to hold the like at night. You're not going to get anything. You're not going to get good footage of these things with a cell phone.
Speaker 1:And the fact that the government has said the Pentagon has said well, we don't have our own footage, we've just been using the footage that we've seen. This has been going on for a month. Are you telling me you haven't had any assets in the air? You haven't had one of our many satellites focused on this? Again, we have satellites. We've all seen movies where they show the government from a satellite being to zoom in. And even if you assume some of that is a little exaggerated which I don't think it is, but let's even assume that it is you just know what technology is available. Just think about what technology is available. Look at that James Webb telescope and the shots that that's getting of, like things like we have the power to zoom in on anything.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, so I guess. So how can you not? How come they haven't done it? What I meant, what I mean when I say the uproar would be quicker, is that there are private citizens that are getting upset. But I think if you went back 25 years, let's say whatever amount of time you want to say.
Speaker 2:I just think that you'd have a quicker response of a larger group of private citizens. That's what I mean. I mean I think that having the videos is what's part of it, so maybe it kind of goes back and forth, because I think that's what's fueling it.
Speaker 1:I think if this were just people saying they saw it and there wasn't footage, the people who saw it would know they saw something. Other people would kind of shrug their shoulder and say you probably didn't. It's the footage that's making other people go. I'm going to go out and see myself.
Speaker 2:But there's only so long, chris, it can go. I'm going to go out and see myself, but there's only so long, chris, it can go. That there's just normal everyday people and the area keeps getting larger is what I'm saying. So if this was a hundred years ago and you said, from Maine to Florida, just everyday people are seeing these things, it'd be hysteria.
Speaker 1:I think there'd be a chance you could shut it down. I think what changes it is the massive of cell phones and the connectivity, because that's the other thing that's changed All this together, all of it happening at the same time. If this happened 100 years ago, you wouldn't have all of it.
Speaker 2:You couldn't.
Speaker 1:There'd be no central location where everybody would know it would be these things. And that's the thing. That which is making this a lot harder is John Kirby can get up there and he can say we haven't been able to corroborate it. And then you immediately cut to numerous New Jersey police, state police elected officials who say no, I myself have seen these things Well that's part of what I'm.
Speaker 2:That's gonna have to come to a head if this keeps going on.
Speaker 1:Yeah they're hoping it goes away. It's what they're hoping, it goes away Right.
Speaker 2:So if it doesn't go away eventually, the person that says listen, we haven't been able to corroborate anything, the person at the state level, is going to say, then why don't you come down here and stand next to me while we look at them? I mean, it's going to have to eventually happen.
Speaker 1:Why has that not happened?
Speaker 2:Right, I don't know where they are. Well, come over here, I'll show you. I'm standing looking at it. It's going to get to that point if it doesn't go away. And even if it goes away, you're still going to have enough people that are going to want to know what this was.
Speaker 1:I want to play a little bit of this. On Fox News, Martha McCallum actually had John Kirby on, and what you're not going to be able to because I'm just going to play the audio. But what you're not going to be able to see for those listening is Martha McCallum's face, Because as she's talking and as he's responding to her, she just has this incredulous look on her face like am I hearing this? But yeah, you're going to hear a little bit of this, just because his word salad is just amazing this is shocking.
Speaker 3:Okay, and I'm not the only person who feels this way. This was happening at Langley a month ago. Okay, these people are not crazy. They're seeing these things with their own eyes. This is not normal behavior. They are not planes that are coming in one direction and they're heading into Newark Airport and then they're landing. Okay, we spend $8 billion dollars on defense. We have the greatest intelligent capability in the world so how can you stand there and say to the country right now gosh darn, we just don't know what these are.
Speaker 4:Because I'm not going to lie to you or to the American people, and I'm not going to lie to you or to the American people and I'm not going to say we know something when we don't, and we would never, ever stoop to think that an American citizen was crazy or nuts. Because of what they're seeing and what they're documenting. We're taking that imagery seriously and we're doing the best we can to analyze it and we encourage people to come forward if they have additional sightings and imagery.
Speaker 3:I want to do the we can to triangulate it, but let me, I'll be gosh darn if I'm gonna stand up here and make up stuff that I don't know to be true. We don't want you to make up anything. Um, you know, do you know and you can't say. Can you tell me that?
Speaker 4:no, no, I'm telling you, martha, I'm telling you we don't you don't know every we don't. Let me ask you to corroborate every single sighting. Some of them them. We have not all of them and we're working hard to do that.
Speaker 1:So that was the other thing is he said that he changed it a little bit there because in his initial statement he said we have not been able to corroborate any of the sightings. But then he was talking to Martha McCallum and he said, well, we have been able to corroborate some of the sightings. So he and what, like what you said. If this keeps going on, now they've promised the special equipment for a couple of days. Ok, what happens when a couple of days pass and you get that special equipment? We're hearing from from, we're hearing from the state police, we're hearing from sources like all over the place saying we cannot detect these things, we can't lock on to them, we can't these things, we can't lock onto them, we can't see them. And if they, when we get close to them, the governor he said he actually said my understanding is these things are highly advanced and when we get eyes on them they go dark.
Speaker 2:Yeah, did you see that the Coast Guard ship off New Jersey? This was in the Asbury Park Press, a local newspaper. That's where apparently that they saw these drones coming out from the water. I don't want to say they saw them coming out of the water, they saw them. You know, you and I who have been researching and talking about these types of things for a while, the water has a lot to do with the things we've talked about, right, I mean, so they see them coming from the water. No one saw them coming out. I guess I want to differentiate that that we know of that, we know of.
Speaker 2:And then a Coast Guard ship went out there and then they said a Coast Guard official says that their 47-foot ships one of their 47-foot ships in the ocean that was out there was being trailed by 12 or 30 of these drones. I mean, what the hell?
Speaker 1:Yeah, that was actually, uh, one of the Congress people. Um mentioned that too, cause he he said there's another Congressman who, from New Jersey, you know, and this guy, he immediately said well, I have inside sources that are telling me the the iranians have a mothership off the off the coast I hope that's not the case well, he said that.
Speaker 1:And he said I have highly placed sources. And then immediately the pentagon came out and said no, there's no evidence of this. And then, when he was pressed on, he's like well, I didn't say that, that was it. I said that was my understanding. You know it's like. Come on, so let's look at the possible explanations, right? First possible explanation hobbyists. Got to take that off the table right At this point I didn't even put that on my list. I mean, that's what they've said.
Speaker 1:Some of these could be hobbyists. Okay, maybe you could say that in the very early part of the day, but there ain't no hobbyist at this point. That's going to try Like if a hobbyist at this point, that's going to try like if a hobbyist was doing first of all, hobbyists, not going to have drones the size of suvs, let's just there. You can't get them, okay. And if, even if you could, even if you could, they're not going to stay up in the air for hours, and who's going to have all of these? Right, and it's not like there's one, and that's the thing is, if you say, well, there's a, there could be a hobbyist if there was one flying around.
Speaker 2:Yeah, nobody would even care.
Speaker 1:And then you hear things like well, we saw 50 of them, we saw 30 of them, we saw them all over, we saw them all night.
Speaker 2:And when people are seeing them, chris, they're seeing them in different locations at the same time, so they're not seeing the same 50.
Speaker 1:Yes, that was a good point that one of the New Jersey officials said. He said one of the things I find interesting is this is spreading to other areas but it's not diminishing in the first areas. So he's like it started off here and it spread to this county and this county and this county, but it's not the same ones moving, because then we wouldn't have the same sightings here. He's like the sightings here are still happening and they're spreading. And then they said, well, that could be, maybe there's a hobbyist club.
Speaker 1:That is like coordinating behind the scenes say now you guys do it part of my language it's just so stupid and it's okay there's, that we throw that one out, right then you have a. What did you, don't I?
Speaker 2:mean, at the end of the day, if it was a hobbyist club or a concerted effort of hobbyist clubs or a private company, by this time they would have come out and said hey, whoa, it's just us by what we've always been told when, whenever people talk about conspiracy theories, one of the big canards that's always like trotted out is people can't keep a secret.
Speaker 1:if you couldn't have a conspiracy like that because people couldn't keep it a secret, if there was a hobbyist club that was coordinating at this point in multiple states, someone would get wind of that. A spouse, a girlfriend, boyfriend, you know, a friend of one of the hobbyists would go wait a second, like it would leak.
Speaker 2:And you'd have to say, a group of people that decided that they really like drones and be part of a hobbyist club, that they all got together and decided to vote to scare the shit out of the Americans.
Speaker 1:Right. So you got to take that one off the table, right? Okay, so we remove that one. Now you have foreign adversaries. Right, could be Iran. It's not Iran. If Iran had, iran's military capability is not what we think it is to New Jersey. The same thing with Russia. If Russia had what is being displayed in this technology, they would be utilizing it in Ukraine. They certainly wouldn't be flying it over us and the Chinese. Same thing. Like the Chinese, if they're going to have advanced things like this, they're probably going to have it in and around Taiwan, which they've had their eyes on. So that's the first thing. Desk, they're probably gonna have it in around taiwan, which they've had their eyes on. So that's the first thing. Then the second thing is, like you said, they don't show up in the middle of the night. If these things came out at midnight and stayed in the air for a couple of hours, from midnight to like three or four am, we probably still wouldn't know about it.
Speaker 2:I guess you got to say, you got to wonder why the time of the day that it's happening and why only at that time? So what? So I'm, I'm at a loss, I can't figure it out. Could so back to the military thing, the, the, the foreign, could it be Iran? I mean, I don't really think they have that type of technology. Could they be a proxy for Russia or China?
Speaker 1:Maybe, but what would be?
Speaker 2:the advantages, but what?
Speaker 1:would be. That's the thing is.
Speaker 2:You have to explain if that they say both of these countries, the leaders are kind of I don't want to say looking forward to, but they're not exactly mad that Trump's going to be the president. In a lot of the latest articles they're talking as if you know, yeah, we're going to be able to work it out with him, whatever. Why?
Speaker 1:would they start something now? Why would they do it now?
Speaker 2:So it doesn't make a ton of sense with that.
Speaker 1:And what would be the objective? Like, what is your objective, are you saying?
Speaker 2:we're spying. What are you finding between 6 and 11 pm that you can't find outside of those hours? So what is?
Speaker 1:it. It's weird. So I have a, I have a theory, okay, and it's it's just a theory I don't have. This is just my own personal kind of thought process. One is, I think that some of what we're seeing are military, because there are things up there that are weird, but there's also probably our assets that are checking these, but there's also probably our assets that are checking these things out. So I think when people see tons of drones, I think some of them are our assets trying to keep tabs on this. But let's just say the weird stuff Theoretically, if you were trying to say, listen, we've and I'm speaking as, like you know, it sounds sounds crazy. Like this perspective of a non-human intelligence who's been here for a long time, who observes us, who observes us and knows you know, says, okay, we gotta, we gotta make ourselves known, but if we just, like, float our big ships over cities, these people are gonna freak out, so we gotta ease them into it. Uh, they're finally at a point where, so where?
Speaker 2:are the frogs and the boiling water.
Speaker 1:Well, if you think about it, we're at a point now and the military has kind of done this to themselves by using the drone terms. You've got to remember it's so interesting that they started attaching the word drones to these. Uap is the same way when they started doing this word play with UAP, ufos and then they would say UAP. But then if you listen to some of the UAP talk up before this, they would include drones as UAP. Right, that was kind of their kind of way of being, like the shell game. But all of a sudden then these legit drones situation came out and you notice they suddenly divorced the uap from the drones. They don't talk about uap, they always just talk about drones. But not too long ago when they would talk about uap unidentified anomalous phenomena sometimes they'd say, well, these things turned out to be drones so, because at that point I guess they might have shifted from uap, because they then identified.
Speaker 2:But I think what they did.
Speaker 1:Is they backed?
Speaker 2:themselves into a corner.
Speaker 1:Because, what they did is they they're using. So everyone's used to seeing drones now. Right A hundred years ago, if this had been happening, people would be freaking out because people aren't used to seeing things in the sky. But over the last bunch of years we've gotten used to drones. Drones have become sort of ubiquitous. I to drones.
Speaker 2:Drones have become sort of ubiquitous.
Speaker 1:I gotta be honest, though Do you ever see drones?
Speaker 2:at night.
Speaker 1:Not at night. No, because you're not supposed to fly them at night. That's what I mean. But I'm saying drones. Do you see them during the day?
Speaker 2:I don't know if you see them that often.
Speaker 1:I've seen them on occasion. I've seen them on the beach.
Speaker 2:Sometimes you know what's the scenery kind of pictures.
Speaker 1:They're taking A big thing.
Speaker 2:Now that makes sense. There's a whole Like a big, nice piece of property.
Speaker 1:Yeah there's a whole thing I've seen. I know this real estate agent who does this really cool thing where they use a drone to do like a walkthrough of the house and it's really kind of neat where you see it from the perspective and it like sails through the house, showing you the floor plan If you're outside, do you just see them going back and forth.
Speaker 1:No, usually you can only do those in line of sight, that's what's making? Those Right, but what I'm saying is is that we're used to seeing these things, so now you have.
Speaker 2:We are very used to knowing that they're a thing Right and nobody really pays much attention to them.
Speaker 1:You're correct. The reason why they're paying attention to them, though, is one is the anomaly of the nighttime, the anomaly of like so many, like it's not one.
Speaker 2:I think that's a lot of it. It's a swarm.
Speaker 1:I think it was just a couple. It was a couple. We would know. If this were one or two, even weird ones, I don't think this would be a thing. No, I think the problem is is it's massive amounts.
Speaker 3:And it's not stopping, and it's happening night after night after night.
Speaker 1:So my theory is.
Speaker 2:And then someone says can you tell me what that might be Right? And everyone that might have an answer says we don't know, we don't know, but don't worry. Over and over and over again.
Speaker 1:We don't know, right, we don't know. But don't worry, it's okay.
Speaker 2:And Listen, if there was a car every single night driving down your local highway yeah, Right, like in your neighborhood, right Whatever, there's just this car, and let's say it's driving without lights on. That's all it's doing. It's suspicious. Every night, People wouldn't put up with it. You'd say we want to know what the hell that is. Why is this person doing this? It's not allowed. That's all it could be.
Speaker 1:Get an officer over here, get an officer over here to be in the area, and so when this thing comes by, you can swoop in and get it. This thing has been going on for a month.
Speaker 2:Well, we've seen it, but we don't know why he's doing it, or she whoever. We don't know why they're driving up and down the street. We'll keep you posted. Nobody will put up with that.
Speaker 1:That's just one car. We don't know what it is, but we're pretty sure you're okay. But you'd be like, well, if you don't know who it is, that's what's I mean.
Speaker 2:None of this makes sense and the thing about well we know, we know it's not bad, because they haven't told us so uh the other thing is we'll keep you posted.
Speaker 1:they won't do anything until they're forced into a corner, which is funny. It's like this has been going on for weeks and then, all of a sudden, they get pulled into it and they say well, we're going to have to get some equipment over there. We'll get it to you in a couple of days. Why did? Why weren't you doing this in the lead up to this? Why? Why did you have to wait for us to ask you to do it, for you to go? Oh yeah, we should do it. It's a good idea. It's because that's how they operate they don't do anything, they just wait. And then I don't think that's correct.
Speaker 2:I think that they do. I think I think they do. I just don't think that the information they can give us, that they have at this point does anything except get people more nervous. If they, if they knew I don't think they know, but I think they at least know something to.
Speaker 1:If you know what I'm trying to say, yeah, Well, this is what's interesting is what I'm hearing from, like a lot of the reporters on Capitol Hill, is this guy, joe Kalil on News Nation. He's really good and one of the things he said he was interesting because he's like I've been up on the Hill for a long time. He's like I've interviewed many Congress people and senators and so forth. You can usually tell when they know something but they can't tell you. He's like you know, you kind of know, hey, I asked this question, and they say, well, we can't, we don't, they won't give an answer. But you know through the conversation that they know what's going on. They're just not allowed to say he's like that's not the vibe any of us are getting. We're getting the vibe that they don't know and that's evidenced by the fact.
Speaker 1:Kirsten Gillibrand, senator, chuck Schumer, you know Congress people, they're all speaking out and saying we need answers. If they had answers wouldn't they be quiet and just, you know a lot of them would be, would be toeing the line. No, don't worry about it, it's fine, but a lot of them are speaking out too, so they're not getting the answers that they can. State police are saying we don't know what it is. Now the Pentagon is telling reporters that they don't know what it is. So one of two things are true they don't know what it is or they're bold-faced lying.
Speaker 1:Either of those is a problem because, if it is, our government, no matter what it is, and a lot of officials have said this. I don't agree with this. But some officials have said if the government came out and said this is us, we're doing something, it's for your protection, don't worry about it. But it's us, it's us. And this official was like we'd be fine with that. I wouldn't be fine with that and I think a lot of people wouldn't be fine with that, but that was his thesis. But that's the thing is. If this were them, they could theoretically make, they could have made this go away by coming out and saying the drones that you've seen over the top of you are a military. Those are military. We can't tell you what they're doing, it's a national security thing. And they probably would have been backed up by a lot of the press. A lot of the press would go officials say it's a national security issue, but I think that might create hysteria it creates more of a hysteria the fact that they haven't given an answer for weeks.
Speaker 2:Well, I think here's, if you want my thoughts on I think it's either they have no idea what it is right. Here's my grand it's either they have no idea what it is, or, when I say they nobody knows, or there's a small group or one department and that's it has an idea what it is and it's not good, right.
Speaker 2:And so when other people, even in our government, are saying they don't know what it is, they're being honest but they're just not being told. So I think it's either one or two things. One it's in the same group. One there's an imminent threat to the United States from some foreign actor and this is somehow a response to monitoring that. Two the threat's already here and whatever those things are are trying to find the threat to the United States. I think there's either some sort of protection from the United States or for the American people. I think it's plausible. It's plausible. Yeah, I don't think it's.
Speaker 2:You know especially the state of affairs, but I think that, or it's something. Nobody knows what the F it is. So an either one to me is very disconcerting. It's very. I'm not comfortable with either one. I think I'm more comfortable with the first one because at least there's some sort of okay. There's a bad person trying to do harm. We're trying to stop it, okay. The other one is we don't know what the F this is. Your guess is as good as mine. It's actually more alarming to me.
Speaker 1:You see, this is my problem with that theory, which? Theory. The theory that it's us, the theory that it's okay, well, no, no, it's not us.
Speaker 2:Well, it is us in response to something.
Speaker 1:Well, what I'm saying is, if these things were only showing up over military assets and they were doing like sweeps occasionally, you could make that argument. You could say you know what? These things always turn up over military structures and this, that and the other thing and they do a couple of sweeps. They're looking for something right? You have these things out well into the night, hours and hours and hours. And then let's let's, you know, pause on that for a second. These supposed drones, even the best of drones, the best of them, are not going to have four to six hours of well.
Speaker 2:that we know about, we saw that rocket, that um, that, that rocket, that thing that Russia had, and it started just shooting things down from the sky. But even then, a lot of those things don't the only way you can what I'm saying is it's a technology. Even the United States said we don't have a real defense to that, right.
Speaker 1:but if, like, they have some drones that could actually also like, supplement their power with solar, like, but you're not going to get those at night. So that's the other thing, right. Let's say there were military assets doing something, again, why would they be lit up like Christmas trees, why would they be showing their lights, why would they be doing and why would they be flying over?
Speaker 2:neighborhoods. Well, here's why I think I mean I think why it could be. I'm not saying it is, it's plausible If you were going to attack, let's say, the northeast of the United States, it's a high population density area. You go from Connecticut down to New Jersey. One or two types of weapons could take out a lot of people. Let's say you look at a New York City right, and when would you get the a lot of people? Let's say you look at a New York city right, and when would you get the most amount of like? Doing it after supper time is the time you would do it.
Speaker 2:No, no, no, like listen my point is this, chris neither one of us know what it is right it doesn't pass the smell test.
Speaker 1:It doesn't it? You cannot tell me that. Okay, there's a threat. Either you know where the threat's coming at, like you know what the target is, or you don't. If you know what the threat, where the threat is, you're going to have your stuff concentrated around there. If you don't know where the threat is, you're going to have your stuff everywhere.
Speaker 2:Well, he's going to keep spreading.
Speaker 1:But it's not spreading logically. If, why is it jumping?
Speaker 2:It's Well. What do you mean? It's going, it's permeating, it's not?
Speaker 1:but it's not spreading. But again, it's not ending. It's not ending in one place and starting in another. It's spreading Like. I know that it makes sense if you think about it like, really like, if you just kind of say like, oh, they're looking for something, they have a threat, they have a threat idea that something's coming and they're keeping it out. But if you look at how they're doing, then why are they spending all night over this neighborhood and not spending any time over in this neighborhood? But then they jump around here and they jump around here. It doesn't have that sense of they're doing a sweeping pattern of looking something, although some people describe it as a sweep doing a sweeping pattern of looking something, although some people describe it as a sweep.
Speaker 2:I guess you could use the same argument or same discussion if you said hmm, maybe it's something you know that is not from a human being, right? The same discussion could be well, why are they doing it the way they're doing it? What are they getting out of this? Right so, and again it's let's say you're thinking it is something that's of this, right so. And again let's say you're thinking it is something that's not human. Right, it's difficult to rationalize what a non-human might do with my human mind. So that in itself is an issue. But let's say that's all we can do. Right, that has no, it has no real rational. There is nothing rational or systematic about any of this.
Speaker 2:So the same types of things apply to all the situations. So do I think it's what I, that the United States is protecting us? No, I would probably say it's a possibility, but I don't think it's 50-50. I do think it's a possibility, though, until there's something that makes me say that's not a possibility. Just like, could it be Russia or China? It could be. Is that a strong possibility? No, it's not a strong possibility, but I think the way I'm looking at it, chris, is this I'm looking at it in the same vein as I'm looking at what we're being told. Hey, I don't know what it is, but I know it's not dangerous. So, which is baloney, right? So for me to say I don't know what it is, but I know it's not that I'm not there yet, right? So to take it off the table completely, is it near the side of the table?
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Okay, but it's not in the center of the table. No, it's not So-.
Speaker 1:If you were gonna make that argument, let's say we were gonna go with that argument. Right, let's say they were doing that right. Now you have a week of this buildup, this cacophony of people saying, no, we need to know what's going on. You have media getting involved. You have you know. You have you know John Kirby getting grilled on Fox News and now every reporter who's going to talk to him, you know they're going to get him, they're going to ask him about this. This is going to be asked at every White House. Briefing now, like this, is this is not going away.
Speaker 1:No, if this were them, whatever, whatever the reason for it was, one is, I don't believe that they'd be again up there with lights on, because if they were trying to, like, protect the homeland and search for something, they'd do it surreptitiously. They would have quiet drones or as quiet as you can be, running in stealth mode. They don't have to have green and red lights on it. The only reason why you have green and red lights on it is to be seen. My theory because I never really like finished my thought on this is and it sounds crazy, but this is my working theory right now If some of these things are being operated by someone other than us and they're picking this time to like say, okay, gotta start. We've been, we've been bouncing around the edges for a long time now. We need to start coming out for some reason. There's a reason why I think that that's the case. But what's the best way to do it? If we suddenly have all our ships, like, hovering over their cities, they're gonna freak. But you know, what we can do is we'll start hovering over their cities, but we'll do it at night, so nobody could ever get a really clear view of what they're looking at and we're going to have red and green lights because that's what they're used to, because they see things in the sky all the time with red and green lights. But we're going to be different enough that's going to make them realize that something's different about this, but not so different that it causes panic. Make them realize that something's different about this, but not so different that it causes panic. We're going to do this for a little while until it almost becomes. There's going to come a point. Let's just say this keeps going and going and going. And let's say the press keeps going, what's going on? And they keep saying we don't know. There may come a point where people will just be like, well, and I haven't done anything yet. I mean, I guess you know, I feel like this is something that's rolling out to us slowly and saying we're gonna show up and we're gonna show up looking similar to what you're used to seeing in the sky, so we don't have mass panic, but we're gonna be different enough that it's gonna start getting people thinking about it. And you could do this for a while and then kind of transition to make the sightings a little bit weirder, a little bit wider, a little bit more unusual and it would be less shocking than just suddenly coming out like in mid-November and having saucers flying over. But that's the other thing. Some of these reports are not drones. I didn't play that part, but on that News Nation interview, when they talked to those three people and one of them was the body language expert that was the guy and he's in Tennessee and when they got to him he said you know, because the first guy, the reporter that we heard he talked about the drone-looking things. And then the other woman corroborated that and said, yes, I saw very similar things. And then she told her story. And then they went to the third guy and his first thing was like mine didn't look anything like you two are describing. Mine was completely different. I'm seeing craft that looked more, and he described basically a saucer shape with lights around the edge. I don't know.
Speaker 1:I mean, what puzzles me a little bit is the taking of Thanksgiving off, and a lot of people have been like well, that proves it, it's got to be us, because why else would we take Thanksgiving off? And I'm like I don't know If you were not us and you'd been around here long enough. It's not hard to figure out hey, these people have these days that are sacred. We're not going to mess with those, we're going to do it every day, but on this day that they I use sacred as just they have this day, they celebrate this thing. It's very strange. There's a turkey involved and something about people coming and stealing land and celebrating it. I don't quite understand it. But that's their day. We're not going to do it that day, and that way people kind of calm down and then immediately the next day it comes back, it starts up.
Speaker 1:I know it sounds crazy, but, like everyone's always talking to, like UFO, you know, like these aliens, they're coming from somewhere else and they're just here as if it's like they're fresh off the boat and they don't know anything, whereas if they've been here for a while and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that something like that is going on, then they know us, they know what our customs are, they know what our reactions are. They've probably seen 50 years of us reacting to different things. They've probably gamed this out in their own way and said well, we know, as a people, we can't just show up over their cities. What we can do is we can stop showing up over their cities, but in a form that doesn't immediately freak people out, but lets them know that something else is going on. They're taunting. If the government doesn't know what's going on, these things are taunting Every night.
Speaker 1:They're coming out to say, hey, we're here, you can't do anything about it. Hey, we're going to fly around for a while, your authorities can't track us, your authorities can't tell you where we're coming from, we're not doing anything. We're not doing anything harmful, we're just bouncing around. Look, we're here, we're here, we go away. We're here, we're here. Our government doesn't know what's going on, but these things are not causing a problem. And then they get revealed as something. I think it would be an easier transition. I think, like I said, people are starting already to get kind of used to it. Now you have like watch parties, people going out at night to go see these things. I'm waiting for them to be around here. I heard Cape Cod.
Speaker 2:I think, though, I'll again I.
Speaker 1:I don't know this. This is just my theory. Yeah, yeah, who knows? I have no idea, could be.
Speaker 2:But to me it boils down to one of those two things. It could be something I'm not thinking about, right, who knows? But I would probably go more, not that I'm. Probably more majority is thinking it's something we don't know what the hell it is. Probably more majority is on thinking it's something we don't know what the hell it is. I'd be even more there once. Once he thinking it's going to happen. Hopefully it doesn't. Right?
Speaker 2:If there are reports other other places in this world, right, that they said we're seeing them coming from the water, right, and we're watching them come towards us. I haven't seen that yet. I've only seen reports of seeing them over certain areas, right, right, so if we're seeing the same phenomenon other parts of the world, well then, yeah, okay, and I think at that point, but it's starting, I mean we're getting. You know what I mean, though. Like if had a Beijing correspondent on CNN saying holy crap, look, right, then you'd say, whoa, okay, that is not anything. It's nothing to do with the United States per se, right? Because at the end of the day, if it's nothing to do with countries fighting themselves, right, and it has something to do with some non-human thing, they don't give a shit about the United States or China. Why do you say that? Well, my point is do you really think that there's some non-human that differentiates between Russians and yeah, of course you think so. You think that they would rather go to the United States than somewhere else.
Speaker 1:But they would know the power structure of our society. They would know that these are the players. So how is this society structured? Well, they're divided up into little independent nations.
Speaker 2:But how would they pick one over the other?
Speaker 1:Well, they would just be observing and say what are the big players?
Speaker 2:But why are they not observing the other ones? How do you know they're not? Well, there's no reports right now. But but why are they not observing the other ones? How do you know they're not? Well, there's no reports right now, but we're not going to get reports from China?
Speaker 1:Sure, we would. We have Americans there that are doing reporting, they'd see it. But China, really nothing comes out of China media that they don't want. No-transcript, all curated from, like the, the government, like it's. I think we underestimate how china controls their citizens. Like chinese citizens don't have the power to just post something on the internet for all the world to see. They don't have access to the same internet. They don't have that. You know they have TikTok, but of course they're limited on when they can use it. Right, my understanding is Ross Coulthard has reported on this that he's getting reports from all over the world.
Speaker 2:But I'm saying, say, ross Coulthard, there's nothing, there's no reports of it coming out of the water near Australia, right? Well, we don't know that. Do you know what I mean? Well, I mean we know that we haven't seen one.
Speaker 1:There's a special tonight on News Nation at 9 pm devoted to this drones and we'll see what reporting comes out of that.
Speaker 2:I guess my point is like. It's like if you could say hey, steve, look, look, my God, look, they're coming out of the water. At Greece, right, right, I'd say wow. Italy, whoa Spain, wow, right, you'd say what?
Speaker 1:Do you think they'd come out of the water though? You know what I mean. But if they come out of the water in the ocean and then fly in, they're coming from the ocean, we're hearing that, that.
Speaker 2:But what I'm saying is, when you but you could say I'm not arguing, but the time you get to by the time you get to germany, you've gone over a bunch of other places, so it's just germany saying it. If you came from the water, let's say let's see what happens.
Speaker 1:I that. What happens is we get this in in like a very like we hear it happening in the united states and we say, well, it has to be something prosaic because otherwise, like your argument, what you know, nonhuman intelligence. Why would they just be caring about the United States? But the reality is. This is happening all over the world and has been happening all over the world, it just hasn't happened.
Speaker 2:Like this is an escalation.
Speaker 1:This is building up to something. So what? The rumor mill? And again you can't take the rumor mill and again you can't take the rumor mill as yeah, but what I'm hearing through different, like there's been a lot of talk from the different you know, ufo experts who have said different intelligence. People behind the scenes are saying there's, there's something that's coming, there's something what do you mean?
Speaker 1:but when you say, there's, something that is a problem, that is hastening this disclosure movement. There's a reason why everybody has to be brought up to speed, and quickly. It's being done as quickly as it can controlled disclosure. It's kind of like have you ever noticed that when they let the UFO stuff out, there's like a pumping of the brakes. It's almost like you could almost see it catching kind of momentum, and then there'd be this pumping of the brakes catching kind of momentum and then there'd be this pumping of the brakes whether the government, you know, will, you know, have a kind of pour cold water onto it and, kind of like, almost try to put the fire out. They light the fire.
Speaker 1:Very provocative statements about. You know ufos are real. We don't know what these things are. Some seem to demonstrate, you know, enhanced capability. We're getting the populace used to the idea. But before it picks up too much steam, then we're pouring cold water on it, we're putting the fire out again and then we'll let it smolder a bit and then we'll build it up again with some more hearings and some more this because they're really they're they're easing us into it, because you can't just come out one day and say, hey, you know, we've been denying this thing for 50 years or 70 years, 90 years, whatever. We've been denying this thing. And hey, guess what? Aliens are here and it's all true, they can't just do that overnight, but they have to do it, that's. My understanding is that, like they have to do it, they have to bring us up to speed, because there's going to be a point where we're going to be brought up to speed, and so it's either them, let us in on it, or it's all going to happen. It's the difference between controlled disclosure and uncontrolled.
Speaker 2:So where do these rumors come from?
Speaker 1:That's the thing Different people have said it in different contexts. There's a CIA ex-CIA agent named John Ramirez who was on, who was doing like the podcast tour a while back, and he has been quiet ever since because he did a bunch of podcasts and he's like I'm done, I've said what I'm going to say. If you want to hear what I want to say, listen to any of my other appearances. But he's been talking and saying that. He's heard behind the scenes that there's some sort of calamity that could be, you know, coming in 2020, like again I 2027.
Speaker 1:I've heard the date when. I've heard 2027 thrown around a lot. I've heard 2030. I've heard between 2027 and 2030.
Speaker 1:That suppose and again, I'm not saying this is true, I'm just saying this is the chatter that's out there that there's certain segments. They asked Lou Elizondo about it, whether there's something coming, that there's a reason for this, and he didn't deny it. He just said I can't talk about that. You know, there's a lot of people who've been asked and they won't deny it. They just say I can't talk about that, I can't get into that, and it's unclear whether they're talking that there's something coming, as if I don't know. I'd like I know this. This sounds. I don't know exactly what they're saying because they're not being specific, they're being purposely vague, but the general vibe is there's a time limit on this. Lula Alessandro has said this multiple times. We don't have the luxury of time. He's said that several times now. We've got to get this out. We've got to get everybody up to speed. We don't have the luxury of dragging our heels anymore. The clock is almost up and it just seems to be this kind of quiet thing of like there's a reason.
Speaker 2:So are you saying, because I'm trying to understand. Do you believe, then, that there is some aspect of some group or, however, department that understands what these are, and that's part of that I think there is, but I think there's self-serving too.
Speaker 1:We've talked about this before. One of the main reasons I think the secret has been kept is because I always say whenever I hear people say, well, why don't they just tell us, why don't they just admit it? And I say I don't think you really understand the degree of crimes that have been committed to keep this secret. There's real evidence Well, certain is evidence that some segment of the government, of the intelligence agencies or whatever, has lied to Congress, has lied to Congress, has lied to presidents. So, right there, that's a violation, that's treason of the Constitution. Like a breaking of the Constitution. Right, Like they're supposed to be the checks and balances, Like you're not supposed to have non-elected officials making decisions that should be in the purview of elected officials and keeping information from those elected officials and keeping them out of the loop.
Speaker 1:We've heard this time and time again. A lot of the permanent intelligence people think of elected officials as temporary employees. Why should we bring them up to speed? They're only here for a couple of years and then they move on Security. We can't let them know. We can't let every Congress person know.
Speaker 2:That's what I mean. So I'm just wondering do you think that, like where we sit today, those, those drones, someone in some department of some part of this government?
Speaker 1:knows, of course. Okay, all right, somebody knows.
Speaker 2:That's what we were talking about earlier, I kind of feel, but I don't know that everybody like I don't know that necessarily, like john kirby at the pentagon spokesman knows but I feel like there's someone that knows, no matter what it is. Whatever the plausibility of this thing is, including what you're talking about about it being potentially a non-human origin, right, I do believe somebody, maybe one person, has an idea, or else it wouldn't fit into. Hey, we don't have a lot of time, right, Because that means somebody knows about some timeline.
Speaker 1:So here's my theory. Okay, and this is just my working theory. We've talked about this before, about whether the question of a lost civilization, the Younger Dryas catastrophe- that you know that Grant had talked about right. So we've talked about it and we keep the two kind of separate but what if they're not?
Speaker 5:what do you mean? So let's go. What do we keep?
Speaker 1:so let's that, the idea of ufos and aliens, and that and that whole oh, I don't so let's just let's go with this.
Speaker 1:So what if that theory is correct, that 12 000 years ago, up to that point, some, the human civilization had made it to some point? And they say, you know, at some point they were sailing the world. They were, you know, they weren't technologically advanced, they didn't have cars and iPhones and things like that, but they were like, they were coming along and things were going, you know, and then all of a sudden there was this catastrophic thing that happened. Some say it was a, some say pole shift, some say solar blast from the sun. You know, some say comet theory, but some catastrophe that wiped the board clean. And it's the type of catastrophe that doesn't just happen once, it's gonna happen another. You know, it happens from time to time, it happens every 12 to 15 000 years. It happens to the planet, that's not even that much of a theory, right.
Speaker 1:But then it's coming up again that's and again this is no, it's. We've had got what? Five, six ice ages, right. So this is my theory what if that thing, what if that event, what if that? Whether it be that comet that supposedly broke off or a solar flare or something that is, you could know it's coming.
Speaker 1:Civilization, the? Whoever built those ancient monuments? If you want to say you know they built, you know the pyramid, whatever seemed to really be making us pay attention to the heavens and keeping track of time, you know the idea that the sphinx is looking out over leo. You know the way that the pyramids are, are in this, in the um. The way they're situated on the ground is kind of like mimicking the Orion constellation. There seemed to be this really thing by whoever built those to say you got to pay attention to the stars and the planets and like, there's a reason why we're making this point.
Speaker 1:We didn't just come out of this calamity and go, well, let's just build things up again. What should we build? Let's build a couple of pyramids, right? They were making a message to say no, no, no, you got to pay attention to this thing because it's coming around again? And what if we're coming up on that, what if we're nearing that time? And so whatever is keeping an eye on us and again this is just my theory it's says is saying okay, this time we're not going to let them get wiped out. Last time we were here and they had made some progress you got a lot.
Speaker 2:You could have given these things a lot of personality, but it it makes sense to a certain degree.
Speaker 1:If you, if why?
Speaker 2:the only reason I ask why is what? Do we give some resource to these people or these things? If that's the case, we must have some benefit. What's the benefit we give?
Speaker 1:The benefit could just be that it could be that they had a hand in what we are. I mean we all know that, like what made us suddenly be that jump from, just like kind of you know, you know. So you're getting right in there that jump from just like kind of you know, you know you're getting right in there. It's a, it's a theory that fits some of the facts and again, I have no proof of any of this. This is just my own personal thing. Am I like married to this theory?
Speaker 1:No, this is just my idle thinking of when I say what could a possible explanation for what's going on be? What? What's a possible? I'm not saying it is the explanation, I'm just saying what in my mind would what's an explanation that kind of fits the facts all right, and so you have this.
Speaker 1:Seemingly something's been here for a long time and you can argue about whether it's been here since the 40s, but that that doesn't seem quite right. It seems like it started picking up in the 40s, like when we started playing around atomic wise. But before that something was here. Maybe it didn't really care. Maybe it's not so much that they care about us, but maybe they care about the resource of the planet of saying like, hey, this, this planet, is where we refuel.
Speaker 1:You know we have to generate huge amounts of energy to power our craft and the most efficient way to generate that energy is by splitting a hydrogen atom. And yeah, we could go out in space and we could try to like collect hydrogen, you know, at various places. But you know what's a really efficient way you got this planet over here? That's 70% water, most efficient way we can fly in here, we can go underwater, we can collect the hydrogen atoms we need. We can split them. We can collect the hydrogen atoms we need. We can split them, we can generate the power to power our crafts. We can do all the stuff that we do. Do they care about us? No, do they care about you? Know whether?
Speaker 1:maybe not maybe they just care about. Okay, we can't let these guys screw up the planet. They're getting. Things are on edge now. They're all been fighting with each other for years and years and years, but now that something's changed, now there's a point where they're a lot more of them have these weapons that literally could could wipe them all out. So all it's going to take is one person blowing off a nuclear weapon. All it's going to take is one nut job and all of a sudden, the whole world's on fire. We let them get to this point. Now we get up. We got to tamp it down. We can't, well, we can't, let these jokers just do it, and so so what? Are you going to do?
Speaker 1:You can't just show up, you got to kind of like ease them into it.
Speaker 2:Well, there's another way of looking at it. Maybe there's obviously more than one way right? One way is and I would kind of lean on that side is that let's just say that theory is correct that we provided resources, right, we being the planet, not necessarily us, it's the planet. Right, we're stewards of those resources to a certain degree.
Speaker 2:So what's the easiest way of making sure those resources continue would be just to eliminate the humans, Because all we do is take resources, right? You could say another theory is they being this other force. Force has been watching us for a period of time and over that period of time we've proven nothing except the fact that we can continue to dwindle our resources and fight over them, and we've done nothing to make them more plentiful. So you could say well, the easiest way to continue their resources is to get rid of humans, because the planet would do just fine without us, Right? We can't do fine without the planet.
Speaker 2:So if I'm just saying, if you looked at, if you're trying to give this outside force a personality, that would be the only frame of reference we have. Is humanity, right? There is no other form of humanity that's ever said yeah, you know, like you said, Thanksgiving. There's no other form of humanity that said I know you guys have these resources, you know, let's just figure out a way to share them together. No, we don't do that, Right? So that's another. I mean the. The other, the other side of the coin is, if they had that much power, or, however, force, then they'd say you know what? We're better off without these people.
Speaker 1:That's my pushback on that and I've get. I get asked this question occasionally when I do my UFO talks and then one of the questions I get is like do you think if these things are here they're a threat? And one of my answers has always been it doesn't make sense. Because if your intent was at any point to take us out first of all it's not very hard you want to take us out? I'm sure you could release a pathogen out and then wipe us all out without you wouldn't have to blow up our cities. You could very easily create a disease that could wipe us all out. Why wouldn't they have done that 90 years ago, 80 years ago, 50 years ago, like if they'd wanted to wipe us out in the?
Speaker 2:40s, because I don't think that if you put that argument together, you're starting it off with want to Maybe they're forced to have to, but this is Well, that's a possibility, and that is a possibility.
Speaker 1:Hey, we'll let these things go. Okay, now we can't anymore.
Speaker 2:That's where I. If that was the case, that's where I would be.
Speaker 1:But it would be akin to like when we came to the North America, when the Europeans came here, right, it would be akin to them saying hey, you know what? There's native people here. We're not going to mess with them, we're going to let them advance and we'll decide, once they advance far enough, whether we'll be okay with it. And if they don't advance in a way that we like, then we'll wipe them out.
Speaker 2:We probably would have if there wasn't a fight over resources. If they just said, because the Indians didn't. If the Indians which is how it started, chris if the Indians said we're cool with what you gave us, we don't want any more of these resources it's not what they said. They said wait a minute, you're taking some of them, we want it all back. It wasn't like hey, we got a lake here. You guys can have that side, we'll have this side.
Speaker 1:It didn't work that way. I think it was more like hey, we're going to take this and we're going to push you over there, and they went over there, and then we said we're going to encroach a little bit more.
Speaker 2:No, it wasn't all that. And we're going to encroach a little bit more. No, that's how, and then move in, but that it was more back and forth.
Speaker 1:But what I'm saying is is that if these things again, this is just speculative, I mean we've gone funny, we started out like really being factual, but now we've just going into like Theoretical theoretical, which is fun too, but um, and then we'll wrap up the drone thing at least, because I think we covered a lot of it. But just, I don't know, you could, I mean, I don't have any knowledge, it's all guesswork. All I'm saying is that some of these things just don't feel right to me. It's my gut. It doesn't feel right if these things, if these things, whatever are and this is the other problem is we talk about these things as if there's one.
Speaker 1:What if this is akin to the Europeans coming over to the New World? There were the Spanish, there were the French, there were the Portuguese, there were the Italians, like all the nations kind of had their own objectives and their own red lines and their own. What do they want to accomplish? What do they want to do? What is their opinion towards the natives? Some countries were really harsh to the natives, a la the Spanish. There were probably other European people, like the Dutch. They weren't quite as bad to the natives. You don't often hear about the Dutch atrocities, my people. I'm part Dutch, but I mean you don't often hear about how badly the Dutch were to the natives, right, you hear more about the Spanish, you know, conquistadors and stuff like that. So what I'm saying is what, if there are multiple things here, like it's not just one non-human intelligence, it's a bunch, because that seems to be, that seems to be, if you take all the reports of encounters with things over the years, it's not one type, it's different types. There's the small greys, there's the tall nordics, there's the like. You hear a variety of different like types of people visiting here again, all theoretical, like from reports and stuff.
Speaker 1:But my general thought process is I think this, this world is teaming with life and I think we've been led to believe that this world is teaming with life but the rest of the universe isn't. That doesn't make any sense. I think that the universe is actually teaming with life and I think that we are akin to that, um, that thing, that creatures, those creatures in your yard as, uh, hedgehogs or or, um, uh, you know something like that. You don't want to kill off because you don't have any huge animosity to them, but you also don't want them screwing around with your whole yard. So you kind of fence them in and keep them kind of contained and you say you know what, we'll keep them contained and they'll enjoy their little fenced in area and they won't cause any problem. And when they learn to behave themselves, when they learn to play nice with the other animals in the yard, then we will remove the fence and we will let them into the yard. That's what I feel is kind of happening.
Speaker 1:I feel like we are being fenced. We are fenced off. We can only interact with the rest of the universe. We can't go there right. The furthest we've gone is our moon. I mean, you can certainly argue that on some perspective, but let's just let's assume for the moment that the furthest we've gone is the moon. Right.
Speaker 1:The rest of the universe? We're interacting remotely. We're using telescopes to look out. We're using instruments, we're sending probes out. We have no firsthand knowledge. No human has been beyond Pluto to actually see what's out there. Technology is what's giving us our information. Is it really out of the realm of possibility that someone far more advanced than us could manipulate what information we are getting? Hey, we're using all this, uh, we're using all this instruments to look at this far planet, not like we can look, like zoom in on planets or anything, but like what do we use? We use emanations of different chemicals, different radiation, like things like that that we use to figure out what this planet like, what's going around the star that's way out here we don't know. We're using instruments, we're assuming that the information that we're getting from those instruments is accurate and we're using our accumulated knowledge of what those instruments are telling us to put together a hypothesis of what that means. How do we know that all of that isn't just a load of crap Like?
Speaker 1:we can say very arrogantly that, well, of course we know, we know what you know, that star system that we can see with the Webb telescope and we can see that it's this, you know, exoplanet. Like we're starting to hear things like that, Like, oh, we've detected possible signs of this chemical being on this exoplanet which could mean life. Again, we're assuming that our interface with the rest of the universe is as it is and the reality is Well, that's all you can assume.
Speaker 1:That's all you can assume. But you also could assume that, if we want, let's take this for example right, sentinel Island off of India, that island that has, like, those natives on it that, like, have not communicated, right, they are not cognizant of the fact that they are protected by the government of India. The government of India has ships outside the perimeter. They don't allow any boats to get in there, because one is any people who've gone there, the natives have killed them. So you have this force called the Indian government which is keeping those natives safe, because if the Indian government wasn't there, one country or another would roll in there with advanced weapons and wipe them out and say, no, we want this island. Who's there? Oh, it's just some primitive tribe, they don't have anything.
Speaker 1:All right, let's just move in there. We want to mine those mountains, or we want to dig for gold or whatever. Let's move in there. We'll just move the things. If there's trouble, we'll wipe them out. Right, what's stopping that? Well, the Indian government's stopping that. Do you think any of the islanders on that island are aware of the fact that there is this entity called the Government of India which is patrolling and keeping the rest of the world from being able to mess with these, like that's the thing is, to those natives on that island-.
Speaker 1:Well, they'd know, though, if they had the technology, but they don't, but their interaction with the rest of the world is what they can see.
Speaker 2:No, you see what I'm saying, though. Like if they had drones, let's say like we have a telescope or whatever we shoot out, right, If they had that, they'd see. You know what is all this? Then they could form whatever thoughts they had. I mean, I don't know, but let's say they, they're not going to jump from primitive. Are you saying there's somebody protecting the earth? You're kind of almost talking like it's God.
Speaker 1:No, what I'm saying is is that if you were an advanced life form and, like I said, I think there's multiple, I think there's multiple, I don't think there's just one and I think there have been reports of different types of UFOs sometimes seeming to fight each other. There have been reports of dogfights. There have been reports of like. It's not like. These craft of different types are always like together.
Speaker 1:I've never seen that there are plenty of things like that. There are plenty of reports again of like. Again it's uncorroborated because these are all. It's not like the military is telling us any of this, but there have been like it just makes it feels like it makes sense. And I know you can't put human motives onto any of these things and maybe that's maybe I'm doing too, I'm anthropomorphizing them too much. But just from a logical, just your a logical point. Okay, we, if the you know, residents of sentinel island, they wouldn't jump from primitive spears and stuff. That's what they are. They're like wearing like loincloths and spears. Right, they are very primitive. They're not going to jump from that to telescopes, right, they're going to go through like if they started to get technological and started to hey, they designed a I don't know how does technology even? Go.
Speaker 1:Like they just started to get a little bit more mobile. Right Again, india wouldn't say, okay, we're going to just. Okay, you know what, they're building up some technology. Now it's a free-for-all, we're going to move. Okay, you know what, they're building up some technology. Now it's a free-for-all, we're going to move all our ships and anybody want to go in there, they're fair game. They would modulate their things accordingly, like, okay, we still don't want to spook them, but now we have to move our ships out just a little bit more, because now these, these people have gotten to the point where they have these little boats and they're going up. They can't go out very far.
Speaker 2:They can only, and it's not not to interrupt you, but I want to go back on another episode to talk more about ancient civilizations.
Speaker 1:Yes, oh indeed.
Speaker 2:But do you? I find it really interesting sometimes when you like. So this is one of the last civilizations you know. They have them in the Amazon too. Yeah, there aren't many. None of them that we've ever witnessed have ever tried to travel anywhere else. They don't want to, right? But my point is, if you look back and let's say, well, how did this happen? Well, they must have gotten these boats and canoes and they went from South America to Easter Island, right, or they went from here to there, but none of the civilizations that you would call more primitive you know primitive today have tried to do that. Yeah, it's the weirdest thing.
Speaker 1:I wonder what they know, though that's what's really interesting to me and like it's so crazy that, like they don't, it's not like the Indian government like goes and interacts with these people, no, they're keeping the rest of the world like they don't interact with them either.
Speaker 1:Like they're keeping everybody away from them, including themselves, right? So like I would love to know like what do those? What do those sentinel island people think like? Do they ever see it? Do they ever see a jumbo jet flying over right? Like do they ever see, like the lights in the sky of a sat like starlink? Do they ever see, you know, off the shore? They see a, you know a boat?
Speaker 1:Do, like, what is their cognitive thought process on what the world is like outside of their island? Do they have, do they have, theories about it? Do they have legends about it? We don't, right? No, like that's what's so bizarre. Is you have this? Like you have this group of people who live on this island who are cut off from the rest of the world by choice. They don't seem to be like you said. They're not. They don't seem to be building boats and going out there to explore, and anyone of who does show up on their island they kill pretty quickly, right and again, that could be out of fear, if anyone knows. Sure, it's out of fear, but if anybody really wanted to wipe them out, it's like okay we could send a battalion of Marines with body armor.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but nobody wants to do that.
Speaker 1:Right, but what I'm saying is that it's not even a fair fight. If we wanted to take Sentinel Island, let's remove the Indian government for a second.
Speaker 2:Well the same thing applies kind of in the Amazon. Those groups of people they're still doing blow darts or whatever they're doing. Those groups of people they're still doing blow darts or whatever they're doing.
Speaker 1:So what if there are non-human intelligence out there that if they had their druthers they would just wipe us out?
Speaker 1:Say no it's a nice planet. I mean, what do we care about these monkeys? And what if there are other forms of non-human intelligence? You have the Indian government of the non-human intelligence who say, no, these people on on earth Island, um, they're primitive, we're going to, we're not going to mess with them. We're not going to show up and start. You know, we're going to let them develop on their own. A lot of the kind of, you know, prime directive kind of talk, the Star Trek thing of like. You know, we shouldn't mess with this and let them evolve. And when they evolve sufficiently and they're ready to join the rest of the thing, we're here to usher them in and we're not going to let them out until they're ready. We're not going to let them, you know, we're not going to let them willy-nilly out into the universe with their nuclear-powered vessels and their desire to want to fight constantly with each other. We're not going to let them out of this little confined space until they learn to behave themselves and play well with others.
Speaker 2:But if we needed, wherever these people were, if we needed any of their resources and they were damaging those resources, there would be a different story. You know what I mean.
Speaker 1:I'm sure there are. I mean, I don't know what what natural resources exist on Sentinel Island? It would be, actually.
Speaker 2:You know what I?
Speaker 1:mean it's interesting. I'm sure we could find out, like now with all our technology, I'm sure we could have, like you could do, what do you call it, lidar and stuff, right Kind of like figure out like, do they have, you know? A mountain.
Speaker 2:Put it this way If let's say we need the forests of the Amazon, we know the planet needs it right.
Speaker 2:And we know we're damaging it on our own, but let's just say it was. Some of these primitive societies were burning down all the trees. People would interfere and say, hey, what are you doing? So you could make some analogies between possible things that might be happening off New Jersey, new York, connecticut area and maybe how someone might intervene. Because this is Chris, this is something that, if it is like you're hedging towards, if it was something non-human, this is a statement to be making. This is basically their stamp and their foot down.
Speaker 5:It's time.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's what I'm saying, and I don't think it's something that can just continue on a slow draw.
Speaker 1:It's going to accelerate.
Speaker 2:Human beings are not and I'm not saying it because I'm an American, but Americans are just we're kind of obstreperous people and so we're not. There's a point and I think technology has made us a little more docile, but there's still a point that people are going to get to. If this continues and they're just, it'll get to a point where listening to we don't know what it is is not an answer. There is a tipping point.
Speaker 1:There is a. This is why I always say about disclosure Disclosure is a process, not an event. But it's not a process that's really controlled by anyone, anyone. Because even those who have the knowledge, let's go by the theory that they're slowly releasing it to the public, little by little, to kind of get the public involved, but they don't want to do it too fast. But even then there's a tipping point. There's a point when enough is out there that the press, that the people in general go, wait a second and start connecting the dots on their own.
Speaker 1:At that point you can't control disclosure anymore. You can eke out the information little by little. Hey, we told you for years that there was no such thing as UFOs. Well, now we're telling you that there are, but we don't know what they are. We're really behind the scenes. You do know what they are, but you can't tell people that yet because they're not ready to hear that yet. You gotta you just gotta meet it out little by little. Here you go we know a little bit more, a little bit more about them. We're learning information, kind of similar. That way they're treating this drone thing. We don't know what it is, but we're working hard to find out when you really kind of know what it is but you can't tell them yet.
Speaker 1:But there comes this tipping point, this, this, and I feel like we're coming up on it very soon. I can already see it start to happen. As I watched cable news and I watched some of these anchors, you could just see in their eyes that they were putting the pieces together. They were just, they were listening to what they were being told and what they had observed on their own through like, years of like been exposed to stuff and just suddenly going wait a second, this like we have the Pentagon telling us that there are these things flying around that everybody's seeing. Now it's not like it's like one person here or there, it's like you have elected officials, you have lots of the public like outcry. Now people are going out at night to go look for these things. And it's like you're seeing the most amazing thing I would see, like on CBS and NBC, like they'd be talking to somebody Meanwhile they'd be showing this divided screen eight divided screens of cell phones of these events.
Speaker 1:It's like footage is pouring in now. It's like it's footage is pouring in now and you could just see in the eyes of some of these, some of these anchors and stuff, that they're putting the pieces together and they're realizing like it doesn't make sense.
Speaker 2:I was watching news nation, right? I don't really watch it that often and one of the reasons is I don't want cable. Yeah. Right, but I have a YouTube TV for now. We got it Cause we were hosting Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1:Can you watch News Nation on YouTube TV? Yeah, well, because it's cable, really.
Speaker 2:I'm watching, okay, right, and so it's on there, yeah. So I was watching it last night, actually getting ready for this, and that's where they showed that guy and he was talking. He's from New Jersey himself and I think you had referenced him. I don't remember his name.
Speaker 2:And he was showing from the night before they were talking. And as they're talking, he just points up and the camera looks up and there it is. So it's just and you could look at it. It was certainly look like a little jet Right. We all can look at it, it's hard.
Speaker 1:It's just so weird. One of the things they say is, even with like, they say well, why don't you get your? And that's the other part, Like cell phones don't do it justice.
Speaker 2:Oh no, Some of these videos are pretty clear.
Speaker 1:But they're getting clearer and you have to think that average citizens are getting I mean equipment.
Speaker 2:So if the video is clear, that means your eyesight could probably see it even better, because sometimes you know just to come out is good.
Speaker 1:People are getting out there with good equipment now, yeah, they're seeing it. But what I'm saying is there's this tipping point where disclosure is going to start. It's like pushing the boulder up the hill. The government right now is, like you know the emperor has no clothes, right, hey, but everybody.
Speaker 2:Can't you see, can't you see all the clothes? Can't you see that robe? I don't see it.
Speaker 1:Right and I think enough.
Speaker 2:People eventually are going to say I don't see it.
Speaker 1:We're going to hit a tipping point where disclosure is an uncontrollable process. There's going to come a point where even the secret keepers aren't going to be able to stop it, because everyone's going to be asking the questions Every White House briefing. They're going to be grilling about this. The press isn't going to let it go. What happened at first and I was in the habit of watching the daily briefings just to see what was it Maybe there'd be one question on this. They talk about other stuff first that start in the Middle East and then ask some questions. Maybe some reporter would talk about this. It would be quickly brushed off and they'd move on right. But over the last couple of days they don't have that. On Friday there was no White House briefing and there was no Pentagon briefing.
Speaker 1:I don't know if they never have it on Fridays or if they just. I don't think so because I rarely see them on Fridays. So I think they seem to have them just like Monday through Thursday. But I noticed like on Thursday there was a lot of questions On Monday. I expect it to be like this is going to be the topic. If this is still going on Monday and I see no reason why it wouldn't be this is going. They're not going to be able to just give these answers, because now the people are going to say okay, you told us three or four days ago that within a couple of days, this high-tech equipment was going to be there. So what did you find out?
Speaker 2:So what are?
Speaker 1:they going to be there. So, yeah, what's up? What, what, what did you find out? So what are they going to say then? Well, we still haven't got you know it's on route. It's still on the way. You know, fedex lost it flat tire and uh, now we're doing a tracking on it and uh, you know, if the package is lost we're just gonna have to ship out another one.
Speaker 2:So it's good like they're only going to be able to delay, make a whole new thing so long before I Listen. Guys, we want to take a Christmas break here.
Speaker 1:Yeah, what's going to happen? This is going to be very interesting If this is still going on and it just stops for Christmas and then starts up the 26th again.
Speaker 2:I didn't know this about. It wasn't as big of a news story at Thanksgiving as it is now, so I think if that happened, a lot of people are going to say what? Now.
Speaker 2:So I think, if that happened, a lot of people are going to say what, and you know honestly, if that happened, chris, you'll be have a group of people that give her a religious, give it a religious connection. That's what's going to happen, the thing I'm struggling with. Maybe it'll stop the whole. Doesn't Hanukkah start like at the night on Christmas or something, or?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I don't quite know the timing on that. Yeah, then it's like a week or something. Yeah, so maybe it'll stop the whole duration. Yeah, it'll pick up on new year's day or whatever that's supposed to stop. Yeah, it's true, and maybe it will suddenly just stop. What if happened? What if all the sightings just stopped? Would it go away? Like that's the thing is. Isn't there enough? Yes, do you think it would go away?
Speaker 2:yes, it would be more apt to go, it would be more likely. How's this? The story does not go away.
Speaker 1:The story doesn't continue with the same kind of legs Right, because without the continuing thing the fire would kind of go off.
Speaker 2:You'd have people want to look into it, but the general American public? They're on to the next shiny thing. Yeah, yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1:But what I'm struggling with is what could be the explanation that doesn't involve non-human intelligence. That would be sufficient, Like I'm, trying to think.
Speaker 2:Well, that's, I think, maybe the one I said trying to protect the united states.
Speaker 1:But even that would ask like that would open up more questions. Yeah oh, I agree, but there's no resolution to this. That would just be like, oh okay, and then we move on no, like there's no like like that's what's really, like I'm struggling with this, like I don't know where this is going to go, and I you know I, like I said all my thoughts, those are just my personal theories, Just my, my, my idle musings. When I think about these things, Do you ever think?
Speaker 2:this could be the beginning of Santa Claus making sure all the kids are doing the right thing. He's got the drones out.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2:I think we're not exploring this possibility.
Speaker 1:I think Santa Claus is a very is a very big possibility. I don't know, I I just I'm fascinated by this and, like Rosie keeps asking me like, oh you, you know, why are you constantly watching this? And I'm like this is the most. And, like I said, I like to look, I like watching the same news reports, because I'm watching every single news report. And she's like are you getting new information? And I go no, I'm not watching news.
Speaker 2:So when you say this name, you're watching different channels.
Speaker 1:Meaning. I'm watching on YouTube, I see the local, the local channels. They usually get the best stuff on the local and that's the thing. Wpix in New York, which I remember. Wpix back in the day with cable TV, when we used to have that.
Speaker 2:Phil Rizzuto.
Speaker 1:Yeah, out of this area. There was very few channels that we got regularly, but WPIX was one of them and that was one of those channels that you know when I was young and we'd be looking for the fun stuff to begin, so the talk shows were over the stupid news, right, and then like around two o'clock in wpix, that like that was one of those channels you'd go to, but I guess they've been doing these, like they've been doing these reports and, um, these are katie caranda.
Speaker 1:There's a reporter there, she's really good, and she, she's like out there and they're cutting to her and she's like, oh, I'm out here now and, like you said, there they are right in the sky. Like this is happening and it's spreading and it's getting worse. I don't see how this gets resolved and doesn't change everything, no matter what the explanation is. Hey, the explanation is this was us? We're up there with these top secret things hovering over the cities because we're protecting you from a threat. Well, that's going to change everything.
Speaker 1:Then, all of a sudden, it's like well, is the threat over? Is it still up? Do we have to like oh right, you know so. Okay, it was. Uh, it's china, oh my god. It's russia. Oh my god, it's. It's iran. It's a, it's a. It's another entity. It's an entity. We didn't know this. There's this, you know private entity out there that somehow has been able to amass billions and billions of dollars and construct these really sophisticated things that we don't know about. But they're human, don't worry about it, they're us. That's still going to be like there is no resolution to this.
Speaker 2:There's no explanation that people just go on their way.
Speaker 1:No, matter what, like I keep saying no matter what the answer to this drone thing is, it's interesting, right there keep saying no matter what the answer to this drone thing is, it's interesting, right, there is no answer, that's just a shrug of the shoulders and go oh, that's what it is all right, now let's move on to the.
Speaker 1:You know, isn't the super bowl soon? Right like there is nothing. There is nothing that can come out, that's going to just make this go away, I agree. So the question is is how long? How long can it last? How, how long can they keep? What do you think?
Speaker 2:How long do you think this can go before it's at a breaking point?
Speaker 1:I think next week. I think it can't go much past next week I think if we get to Wednesday of next week and then the question is and it's still happening.
Speaker 2:If it's continuing, does it continue to permeate?
Speaker 1:If it continues to spread, if it spreads at this current rate, those two things happening.
Speaker 2:I can't see this lasting. You can't, I can't see it being tolerated. I agree with you. I think even a week might be a long time if it continues permeating and nobody has an answer and they're just. The activity just keeps going there was something. I don't think we could sit here next Saturday and people still say hmm, I don't know.
Speaker 1:Yeah, no, this is coming to a head very soon. The only thing that's giving them a reprieve is it's the weekend and they can kind of get away with. Well, you know, we're not come on. You don't think the Pentagon is working on the weekend? We're all off. Hey, we don't want any enemies to attack us on Saturday or Sunday, because that's when all of our stuff goes down. You know, obviously that's not, we're tired.
Speaker 1:But people do have that perception Like it's funny how we've been so kind of like trained to think like nothing happens on the weekends.
Speaker 2:Weekends everyone takes it easy, so don't expect right. Everyone has the day off on the weekend, except the places I go to that I need to be serviced Like we never think. We always think everyone's off on the weekend and then we get mad if a place isn't open.
Speaker 1:So I don't see how this could go much into next week with the same level, if it's still happening and if it's still spreading. And what's gonna happen when you know known reporter, like known anchor let's not necessarily what the hell is his name uh, uh, from cnn um what is that guy's chris?
Speaker 2:uh, trapper guy or no, I'm thinking of um.
Speaker 1:I can't think he does the new year show on on uh on uh on cnn. He does that. He's there for the New Year's. He's got that white hair. Ryan Seacrest, I'm just joking, what is his name? I can't think of his name. Anderson Cooper. Yes, anderson Cooper. I don't know why I was just blanking on that Anderson Cooper level of journalist, like somebody who's well-known, a household name, not necessarily him, but someone of that level, level a name where everyone you mentioned that to knows who that is big anchor of abc or nbc or cbs, sees them themselves. So they come on, because this has already happened a couple times with reporters the guy david muir right, like he's kind of a thing well, that's right exactly like if he said and you know what I actually like, that guy I like.
Speaker 2:I like aniston cooper too.
Speaker 1:They've had a couple of them on where they've had production assistants who live in Jersey or whatever and be sitting there and go. No, I saw it myself On camera. On camera They'd be sitting there. There was one of the people I think it was Anderson Cooper and he was sitting with Anderson Cooper. No-transcript, and here's what I saw.
Speaker 1:Oh right and he corroborates all of that and he says no, I saw and like I said that News Nation reporter. I already saw Megyn Kelly on Twitter retweeted like that. And she must know him. You know she was at Fox, he's at News Nation. I'm sure he's been working his way up. She knows him apparently, and she says this is a credible reporter.
Speaker 1:He's a good reporter. I trust him implicitly. She's probably known his. He's not someone who's ever so saying like this guy is saying it. This is what's changing, is it's not just that rando that you can discredit? You have now congresspeople, senators, journalists Like you have doctors, lawyers, the ex-govern you have doctors, lawyers the ex-governor of new jersey, of new jersey, filming it over his house.
Speaker 1:Like you, have people, and what's great about this, too, is the evidence they give has a clean chain of custody. Right? It's not this blurry video that shows up on twitter or youtube. That doesn't have any attributions to it. It's the ex-governor of was it Minnesota?
Speaker 2:Well, they might've been, but there was New Jersey ex-governor too.
Speaker 1:So there was like an ex-governor that says, no, I took this footage. Here it is. Here's the metadata. Oh, you can see on the metadata that this footage was taken at this place at this time. Oh, and here's this other footage from this other person who took place, of the same thing. So now we can corroborate that this did happen.
Speaker 1:Um, but what's you know? What's? No, nobody's answering. What's the faa say? Right? Hey, he's been very quiet, right, and that's the thing is, why is the fbi putting the charge of these drones?
Speaker 1:Shouldn't it be the faa? Why is it like the faa has control of our airspace? If these things are operating and not operating, if they have pseudo navigation lights on them the red, green lights that alone is breaking FAA regulation. I can't just fly a thing up there and put those lights on differently and just be like, hey, I'm going to put the red on this side and the green on that side, even though it's reverse on. You know, like you're breaking're breaking you to say that these drones aren't breaking laws yet, so there's nothing we should do about it, which I have actually heard floated from multiple people on news.
Speaker 1:Still, I was kind of watching cnn and msnbc last night and as it got later into the night, they started bringing in the you know national security people and the people who used to work for the this or that, and the way they would just try to tamp it down and be like well, we think this still might be hobbyists and we think that they're not breaking any laws, they're not doing anything wrong. People have to get used to drones in the sky. Warfare is changing. We need to pass different laws.
Speaker 1:Like all that gaslighting of being like this is not a big deal. They were continuing it and sometimes the anchor would go along with it. Sometimes you could just see in their eyes that they were like hearing it for the first time and almost going that doesn't, that doesn't smell right, like that's. That's what's changing and I think by the end of this next couple of days there will be major television people who aren't compromised in some way and you know. But there's gonna be someone who comes out and says I saw it and it's just gonna keep going. I don't have a prediction on where this is going to go, but I keep telling people.
Speaker 2:But the other thing too is if activity gets worse over New York city, I think that's all. Oh, that's it Right.
Speaker 1:That's all it would take. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already. Right, new Jersey, you can almost like, although New Jerseyans are like wait, no, what's not just one part of New Jersey, now it's the whole state. Now you have the governor, now you have this.
Speaker 2:But once you have it over New York City. One of the most recognizable cities in the entire world.
Speaker 1:That's where a lot of those major media organizations are based.
Speaker 2:That's what I mean. It's only going to be so long before everyone on their staff has seen it. If that's happening, all bets are off in terms of toleration.
Speaker 1:The only thing that could shut this off is if it stopped. If the sighting suddenly ceased Right and ceased, I still don't believe that it would just go away. But I think you're right that there would be nothing keeping the fire alive and, although there's some people who wouldn't let it go, you could get the majority of people to move on to the next thing, right? The reason why I don't think that's the case is that that group of people who saw it themselves and wouldn't let it go is so big now that I don't think. I think that that population of people the only people who are poo-pooing- this are the people who don't live there, but not all of the people that saw.
Speaker 2:it will continue to do it.
Speaker 1:No, no, no, they won't. But I'm just saying there'll be enough of a pool of people who did see it, like I noticed. There's a lot of people who like post on social media and they'll be like they look at the footage, that's a plane, I know that's a plane and they live, you know, hundreds of miles away and they didn't see it, whereas you ask everybody on the ground who saw it and will say I know, I know it looks like that, but when you see it in person, you know it's not a plane. But that's hard to capture on this footage because it's at night and all you're seeing is the lights. But when I see it, like you said you, in person, you can see it better with your eyes and you watch how it moves and you watch how it and, like I said, if this was the summertime, you'd have a lot more people that would want to be outside.
Speaker 1:I wonder if that was a thought process to why this is happening. I don't know Now.
Speaker 2:Because, like where it's happening in New Jersey, it's big beach communities. So you'd have a lot more people that just want it. First of all, they just want to be outside, and then, if this is happening, is happening.
Speaker 1:It's more of an incentive to be outside if I catch wind that this is happening anywhere within driving distance well, everything's within driving but I'm saying something like you know, like right now I'm not going to the cape, like I'm not going to drive to the cape to maybe see him, but if I found out these things were happening, you know, a 30 let's say it's salisbury beach, you might go there.
Speaker 2:I I think I told you the story earlier so, um, I can't remember what night it was.
Speaker 1:It was early this week, uh, we heard a sound I went out a sound like a sound of like a motor or something like that and I went outside and I thought I saw a drone. I was excited. I was like, oh my god, it's one of those drones. Then, after a few seconds of watching it, it was a um, it was a medvac helicopter. Unfortunately, a woman had fallen down the stairs at the um blue ocean center at the festival of trees was there and unfortunately an older lady had, I guess, fallen down the stairs and really hurt herself so they had to bring in a medvac helicopter to like, uh, I don't, I don't know what happened with her.
Speaker 1:Hopefully she's all right, but that's what it ended up being is. The helicopter flew over our house multiple times and ended up landing in the huge parking lot that's on the corner there, the beach lot basically, and that's where they oh, speaking of it. So anyway, it wasn't a drone, as far as I know. I've seen a couple of posts on different social media about drones in this area. I've also heard somebody say that they're over the seabrook atomic plant.
Speaker 1:I have not, I mean anytime I look there hasn't been anything and of course, like you said, people are looking up in the sky. They're misidentifying stuff. I'm sure there's plenty of people who see a plane and automatically say it's one of those drones, so that's, that's also muddying the water. I also think the government has assets up there also muddying the water purposefully. I mean, do I think our government isn't above? Let's just say they don't know what's going on.
Speaker 1:It would also behoove them to put their own assets up there to just muddy the water, because they wouldn't want all the reports coming back to say, hey, these things are weird. They would want to be able to point to some and go see that one that's a plane, see that one that's a plane. See that one that's a plane, that one's a plane, when in reality it is a plane or it is a drone that looks like a plane, because they put it up there right to do exactly that, to calm everybody down. And that's what a lot of people were afraid of at first. Like, are you about to gaslight us? Are you, are you about to show all these things and get everyone interested, and then pull off the cover and go see, see, it was just this. See that UFO thing, don't worry about it Because they've done that before. I don't think that's happening, but it doesn't feel like this.
Speaker 1:It doesn't feel like because they would have already done it Like the obfuscation. I can never say that word.
Speaker 2:It's difficult to make such statements that they don't know what it is, and then turn around and the same person say we knew all along. I don't see that happening. Because then you lose trust about everything that's what I'm saying At this point.
Speaker 1:You can't come out and say oh, we were just keeping it from you, it's really this, you guys, you made us tell you that's not happening, right. So either they're going to continue with the lie if they don't know what it is.
Speaker 2:Well, it's not a lie.
Speaker 1:Well, all right.
Speaker 2:They're going to continue with the lie and they don't know what it is.
Speaker 1:I thought you said lie. I thought you said lie. Well, I did. But at some point they're going to have to say, okay, now we know what it is. Because if they say we don't know what it is, but we're looking into it, then it's only going to be a couple more days when people go okay, what'd you find out?
Speaker 2:I mean it could be true that they just don't know that could be. That would be terrifying. Well, absolutely. But I'm just saying it could be a reality.
Speaker 1:I know this sounds counterintuitive, but out of all the possible reasons, non-human intelligent intelligence is probably the best case scenario, in my opinion, for us, because any other explanation is not good, well, any other explanation means we're on the brink of something very bad. If this is a foreign actor, we're in trouble.
Speaker 2:No, no, no, Even if this is not a foreign actor. This is our government If our response to a foreign actor, there's something big that is either going to happen or could happen. But this is the thing.
Speaker 1:If this was us in some capacity yeah, they're not going to tell everybody, but constitutionally, some members of Congress would have to know in the very least. The gang of eight there's eight senators that are basically are the ones who they have to be told everything. Right, they don't know, and and that's that's. The thing is if the government would have come out and say this is us, even if they were doing what you said they were, they were protecting us.
Speaker 1:That's still a big problem oh yeah because in the very least, chuck schumer should have known about it. Uh, he, you know a couple of other senators like there's the, you know marco rubio, those are, those are the members who are on the intelligence committee like if they don't know what's going on, that's a problem and there's no explanation. There's no world where the government could come out and say it's us, we were, we're doing it for a reason, like you said, then then we're in trouble. But even if that were true, and even if they said that we've thwarted it, it the, the danger's over, everyone's safe. Now that still would be a big deal, because all of Congress would be like you can't just do stuff and keep it from everybody.
Speaker 2:How come no one's asked Elon Musk if there's a way to go up and just catch one? I mean he catches rockets now this is what I find very suspicious too.
Speaker 1:Elon Musk runs his mouth about everything. He hasn't said anything about this he hasn't said anything about this, and whenever he's asked about this, he downplays any kind of idea. Oh, I didn't know. He's been asked. He does he? Downplays whenever. I haven't seen any evidence of UFOs and I have a lot of satellites up there. He's full of crap. Well, again he cannot help himself, but chime in on everything. He's been doing it constantly and he hasn't even mentioned this.
Speaker 1:Trump actually said something to actually shoot it down, right, but he also it was a goading kind of thing Like I don't find it plausible and you know, I don't find it possible that they don't know what's going on. You need to tell us or shoot it down. That's his way of saying. No, you have to put up or shut up if you don't know what it is.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean, I kind of I don't agree with the man on a lot of things I agree with either. What is it? And if you don't want to what it is, knock one of them down and figure out what it is.
Speaker 1:It's not crazy this crap about we can't take it down because it's under like it's lithium batteries.
Speaker 1:I've heard that? Well, have you also heard that um? Just recently, just yesterday I think, there was a cable that went out of, like basically an alert from um I don't know if it's the fbi or whatever basically saying if one of these things crashes, the protocol is don't go near it, call authorities, and there's hazmat um protocol that has to be followed. Why? That's a good question, isn't it? They tell you they don't know what it is. Then they put out.
Speaker 2:Maybe they say to to be.
Speaker 1:Uh, of course that's cautious, of course what they're going to say. But then people are like, wait a second, if they're just regular drones, we don't have to worry about them. Then why are you saying hazardous material? You could go along with the thing about calling authorities. You could like that. You could say, hey, we don't know what these things are, they're not dangerous, but we don't know what they are.
Speaker 2:Maybe because they're unsure if there's a nuclear thing or something, I don't know.
Speaker 1:But then that's. The problem is, if there's even a remote possibility that these things could have hazardous materials, then why are you being so blasé about them being a bolus? I don't think they're being blasé.
Speaker 2:But they are. I don't think they are, Chris. I think that it comes across that way and I think that they don't know what else to say. To try to tamp down any panic, I think no.
Speaker 1:I know I understand, but what I'm saying is is that if you take them at their word, no, I know I understand, but what I'm saying is is that if you take them at their word which I don't, but I'm just saying is from the perspective of the press I do take them at their word, but their words are very jumbled.
Speaker 2:Right, so I think they, they, they, everything they say is there's this little. The door is never open or shut.
Speaker 1:It's. I always tell people you have to listen to every word. That's what sometimes I get accused of being uh like pedantic because, like you, know, like being very like.
Speaker 1:I have to be very specific. And rosie, rosie will say like you're being like, you know like. And I said well, I have to be specific, because if you're not specific, you're unspecific. And if you're unspecific, then then your words are meaningless. And so you hear the pentagon say this is their line. We have no. The Pentagon, to this date, or Arrow, to this date, the all domain anomaly resolution has found no verifiable proof of extraterrestrial interactions with this planet.
Speaker 2:Okay, so the question is never followed up. With what unverifiable proof?
Speaker 1:have you received? So, yeah, the right question. Wait, never get asked. So verified proof.
Speaker 2:What? What first of all, can you define verified proof Exactly?
Speaker 1:So are you saying verified proof would be, you know, a um, a ship that clearly is marked from Cigna five, nine, six, that clearly is marked from Cigna 596 and has a map to like, yeah, they don't do it.
Speaker 2:You know how do you verify proof.
Speaker 1:At what point do you consider it?
Speaker 2:verified proof. At what point do you do a differentiation between unverified and verified proof? They don't run through these things with you.
Speaker 1:Circumstantial evidence is not the same thing as verified proof. So if you have tons of circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence is evidence.
Speaker 1:Well, that's the thing. That's what they say about witness testimony. Like, where's the evidence of this? All we have is witness testimony. Are you kidding me? We put people to death over witness testimony. So that's the other part of it. So they say no verifiable proof of extraterrestrial. There again, how do you prove something is extraterrestrial? How come they never use the term and this is what no reporter has called them on? Can you say that same set of line that we have no verifiable proof of non-human interaction, not extraterrestrial, because extraterrestrial is a very specific thing, saying this thing is from outer space this planet.
Speaker 2:They play around with that too. Because, well, they play around with that too. Because they'll say I think they play around.
Speaker 1:They always say extraterrestrial.
Speaker 2:I know that I've heard non-human too. No, they only use non-human Because there's no evidence of non so here's why I say that.
Speaker 1:They've never said that Non-human. The only place you've heard non-human is in the legislation where they talk about non-human. Whenever the pentagon or any government official who was being asked about it because, uh, they saw the department of energy lady and she, like, picked up a piece of paper and read it, you could tell that she was reading it and it was the exact same line. To this date, arrow has found no verifiable evidence of alien, I mean extraterrestrial right thing so, but I never say non-human.
Speaker 2:They never actually get asked the question. No known human. So you could play around with words and questions all you want because you know, you could say, because someone could say there's no evidence on this planet of non-human, I might believe that I mean I don't see any evidence, right, but you can. You know just like anything else you'd sit there. You can ask the questions in such a manner, one after another, that you could box them in a corner and nobody were aggressive Right.
Speaker 1:If nobody really does that it was coming, and that's the thing I was very surprised by seeing. We've gone on so long here, but this is such a great topic You're talking about the hearings.
Speaker 1:No, what I'm talking about is just when Martha McCallum was on Fox News, was questioning she was being aggressive with him and she was doing the follow-ups and said that exact thing Like how can you say there's no threat if you say you don't know what it is? He still danced around that one, but like that, that's, that's the big question now. Yeah, all right. So so where we stand right now, I can't wait to get home and like go back to like looking at this stuff. I know that a lot of the news channels, I know that we're doing like specials, like we're going to see over the weekend, we're going to see a lot of coverage. I'm going to continue to watch all the major news networks and what I was doing is I was had on different like my iPad, my phone, and I was watching each of them and at the top of the hour I was going to cycling through.
Speaker 1:I actually was on a pretty good roll yesterday where I was like I'd watch CNN and they'd have like a segment on it, and then I'd switch to MSNBC and they'd have a segment on it, and then I'd switch into Fox and they would have a segment on it. Sometimes I'd miss the very beginnings of them. But it was just on this ramble the top of every hour I would go to. Cnn was kicking it off. It was the first thing they talked about, and then MSNBC it was like the second thing they talked about or the first thing, and it just went on real long and same with the Fox News. It'll be interesting to see where that is in all the ABC, nbc, new, in all the abc, nbc, cbs, all the major news organizations. We're talking about it constantly and so this is what's going to be. The interesting thing is there are still probably people out there who haven't paid attention to the story yet by the end of this weekend.
Speaker 2:At some point, in all seriousness, the president has to say something. Yeah, at some point I.
Speaker 1:I can't imagine that we can go very far into next week. You have to say something. The press is going to be demanding it. Especially since they said that apparently the president's been briefed Because they did ask him has to have been. They said has the president been briefed? They didn't say yes. What they said was the president is aware of the situation and he's keeping tabs on it. I do not believe that.
Speaker 2:It's up to you, but that's Well, I mean, I'm sure he knows about it.
Speaker 1:It'd be weird if he didn't. I'm sure he does, but is he even dialed in? I mean, there's a lot of news stories basically about the and I don't want to go down the politics thing that the party of the president is not too happy with him because it seems like he's detached from everything. Right, just kind of like is is is on the like link. When I got laid off and then, like the last weeks of having you know, I knew when I got laid off way back then and I was there for another year they kind of railroaded him.
Speaker 2:So I think he's probably he's kind of peacing out, he's like yeah like whatever guys I'm gonna enjoy my holidays.
Speaker 1:You know I'm gonna pardon some people and just like play it out and get through this, but so that's it. But let's just assume that he has been briefed. Yeah, we can't go far into next week, so let's see, we're going to have to revisit this. We will revisit this. I'm away, I'm taking a little trip and I'm going to be, of course, following this when are you going Miami? Maybe they'll be coming out of the water in miami.
Speaker 1:Supposedly it's in florida. I'm going to be keeping my eyes open. I'm going to be good idea on your vacation and I want to find if there's in the next couple days, like in the you know from now until like early next week, if I get a whiff of, of confirmed anywhere that I can get to in, like you know, under an hour maybe, like in the florida keys.
Speaker 1:What I'm saying around here I'm gonna jump in the car and I'm gonna go, going to, I want to go and I want to see some of this stuff Because, again, I've never seen anything. Remember that one time we thought we saw something.
Speaker 2:Yeah, what was it? The International Space Station.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but we used the tracker, we used the tracker, I use that story, I tell that story all the time be misidentified. But but I have to say that, as much as I am an advocate for all this stuff, I have never, to my knowledge I mean, maybe I've seen stuff, but I it wasn't that apparent I have never seen like a ufo sighting that was so um, so clear. Oh, I gotta tell you actually it's a similar topic, but I've been doing these ufo talks, right, yeah, and I was in. I can't remember where I was. I want to say it was maybe. Weymouth.
Speaker 1:And I did my talk. You know it went well. And then afterwards this older gentleman came up to me and he said I'll tell you a story. He said, oh, 40 something years ago. And I was trying to figure that out. And then it ended up being like the mid eighties, which made me sad because I still think of the—I still think of like the 80s as like around 20 years ago. I know it's not even close now. That made me sad, but anyway, what he said was around 40-something years ago in Billerica.
Speaker 1:He said I had three kids, one was 12. One was five and I think the other one was like three. And he said they came in and said dad, there's a UFO outside and he's telling me the story. And he said he's like. I said, come on, he's like. I let them. You know, they grabbed my hand, they're pulling me out there and I was like sure you're seeing a UFO.
Speaker 1:And he kind of went out there to humor them. And then he said I stepped out front, he goes. I looked up and he goes. I just watched this thing in the air hovering in the air. We all watched it. It zipped off fast as light as he was telling me the story. This is this like hardened Marine guy. He was getting choked up. You could see in his eyes that he was thinking back to that day and he goes to this day my kids are all older now, they still talk about really. And he said and I said do you I go? Do you like what do you think it was? And he goes I don't know, I just know it wasn't from here. And then I said did you ever see anything again? And he goes no, no. But I will tell you this. I told my sister about it who lives out in Nevada or something like that.
Speaker 1:And he goes. When I described it to her, she said oh, I know what you're talking about. We see these things all the time. And he described it to me as if, like he said, it was like saucer, shaped with lights around the edges and spinning. Remember, I told you about that interview on on news nation where they had the three people and the third guy says oh my yeah, yeah, that's what he described as well, exactly that same thing saucer-shaped lights around the edges and spinning.
Speaker 1:But what I just found so striking was this this guy was, this was not. This was not some wide-eyed ufo nut, right, this was a, like a, an older gentleman. He would have been a marine. He was just, you know, grizzled old veteran and when he was telling me the story he got a little choked up and he, he was his like. He was telling me the story and I could see like that he wasn't looking at me anymore. In his mind's eye he was remembering what he saw and he says to this day I can still see that thing.
Speaker 1:And he goes I have no explanation for what I, what I was looking at, because what he was looking at, according to him, was this very large lit up craft in the mid-80s, bill Ricka, hovering over his house. And he said, you know, obviously that's pre cell phone and he didn't, you know, obviously couldn't get a picture of it. He said we just stood there watching it in silence and I was like how long did it stay there? And he goes. I don't know, he goes maybe a couple of minutes, but honestly we don't know Cause we like lost all track of time. And he said, just the thing zipped off as fast as you can. And he said that just to this day he's like I still see that it just was so striking because it was one of the most. I mean, I get these often when I do these talks and usually at least a couple of people will come up with me and share their different sightings. But this was one that really affected just me because of just watching him relive it in his head.
Speaker 1:It was so powerful and I just was like and I and I also I said to him I said did you ever like talk about it? He goes no, we didn't talk about things. It's like I said, I told my sister at one point, but he's like you know, and that's the other thing that's changing. Well, yeah, now somebody would talk about it. Think about what's going to happen now, even let's assume this goes away but people now are going to talk about things they see in the sky, like I think, this one event, even if it doesn't continue, which I don't believe, that for a second.
Speaker 3:But even if this one event doesn't continue that this event is going to just stop.
Speaker 1:But let's just say it does, let's just say it goes away, let's just say tomorrow there are no more sightings and this goes into the history. But because it did happen, that's going to change people's perspective, because there are still going to be lots of people especially anyone who saw it are still going to look up in the sky and continuously look for it and be a little bit more attentive to what's above, like if that's the only thing that comes from all this. That's enough.
Speaker 3:And I think it's going to be way more than that, that's, that's, that's.
Speaker 1:you know, that's my perspective. All right. We've gone a long time, but we still have more to cover, though still, because this is at least a little bit, and I don't know how I haven't decided how I'm going to put this out, cause, on one hand, I don't know that I want to put out like a huge one, but also this is such a timely subject that I don't feel like cutting this episode and putting it out and stretching it out over a week, so what I might do is just put it out as one and just like it is what it is right, you can listen to it at your leisure.
Speaker 1:That's. The thing is that people complain sometimes and say well, we don't like a long podcast. And I'm like it's a podcast, you can stop it at any time and come back.
Speaker 2:All you go through the whole thing. We are that engaging.
Speaker 1:You can listen to it all at once, or you could like just listen to it in bits and bobs, but all right. So real quick about the hearings because we have a lot of other stuff. So November 13th. I think it was. November 13th Congress. Actually, let's work backwards. So the Senate had a hearing. It was just the new head of Arrow, Dr John Kozlowski. Did you look at that in any of that at all? A little bit, I was a lot on this.
Speaker 1:So two things that really kind of stuck out to me. One is like the last one where Hedgehog and Kirkpatrick from Arrow I mean that was not a hearing, that was a briefing One witness, it was just like a head of arrow. This guy is less annoying than that former head of arrow who would just constantly poo-poo this stuff. This new head of arrow is a little bit more open. He made some intriguing statements. I mean, he basically did admit there are some cases and he does the same old thing where he says you know some of these cases, um, we've solved some of these cases we don't have enough data to solve. So the same rigmarole, right. But he did go the one step further and say there are some cases that he with all his physics training cannot explain, and no one else in the government can explain it either.
Speaker 2:I'd like to see his hearing to explain what's happening right now.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we'll see what's happening, and that's the other thing. Do you notice how it's interesting that Arrow is not being brought in on this? It's weird. It's not weird, because they don't want this to be connected with UFOs, and this is the other thing I'm sorry to keep you back, but you'd still want it to at least be unconnected Towards the end of yesterday, if that makes sense, I was actually seeing the word UFO trotted out on the major network. Oh, I've seen it In connection.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, but it wasn't happening at first. At first they were sticking with drones, Drones, drones, drones, drones, drones.
Speaker 2:They were pretending there was no, no ufo, like. That's the weird thing about this it does seem to be a drone, but that doesn't mean it's.
Speaker 1:It's not right also a ufo, but we've just had recently two hearings.
Speaker 2:You're right, they're making it. It has to be one of the almost pretending like it didn't exist.
Speaker 1:But that's changing, but anyway.
Speaker 1:But go back to it so that the other thing I noticed about that senate- hearing I don't know if you watch any of it the Senate, I mean the Pentagon communications person, susan Goff, I think her name is. She's the one in the Pentagon that anytime you ask a UFO question, she's the one to answer. She's like their communications person, right? Apparently her background is in intelligence, intelligence like basically counterintelligence, and basically she's her. She's her like psych option, uh, psych, uh, what do you call it? Psychological warfare and stuff like that. That's her specialty.
Speaker 1:But she was in frame sitting behind john dr john koslowski glaring into the camera the whole time. So the message they were trying to send is hey, we know that some firsthand witnesses were not happy when they came to Arrow, but Arrow's under new leadership and we want to hear from you, please give us another chance was what they were saying. But if you looked at it on the screen you would just see her. Whenever Dr dr koslowski answered a question, she was just like watching him. He could. He looked nervous at times like he could see that she was watching him, like watching over him to make sure he didn't say the wrong thing. So then I'll go back a little bit further. I think it was earlier that month we had the congressional hearing with three witnesses, right, right. I felt it too at the time watching that hearing. Something didn't feel right about that hearing it. Just it didn't feel the same as that hearing last summer with David Grush and Ryan Graves and John Fravor Captain Fravor.
Speaker 5:What's his name? David.
Speaker 1:David Fravor. That felt authentic. That felt real. This one didn't have the same feeling. And then there was some other oddity to it too.
Speaker 1:The beginning of it, they said hey, michael Schellenbergerellenberger, the journalists provided us with this document about, um, uh, what is it? A majestic constellation? No, uh, it was an immaculate constellation, right, but it wasn't michael schellenberger who provided them with the document. It was, um, it was jeremy, it was Jeremy Korbel. And they said this 12-page document. And then, when they put the document out on the congressional record, it only had 11 pages. Well, the first page was this statement that Jeremy Korbel had written. So they misrepresented who had given them the document.
Speaker 1:Then Jeremy Korbel came out and said because he had been trumpeting this hearing and saying, basically, this is going to be it. Guys, get ready for it, buckle up. And then the hearing was just like right and he came out and said yeah, do you want to know why that was? We had a first-hand witness for them. They didn't want it and they said't know, did you watch that hearing at all? No, you should watch it. In the beginning of the hearing, a couple of them said it. I think Nancy Mace said it and I think Jared Moskowitz said it. We were told not to ask certain people certain questions during this hearing. This hearing felt way more orchestrated. They were told not to ask and they mentioned it by who? They didn't say, they just said we were. They said certain people I'd like to hear that that's the thing is.
Speaker 1:Nobody's asked them. Certain people didn't want this hearing to happen and then jared.
Speaker 1:Jared moskowitz says during his opening statement that, um, we were told we can't ask certain witnesses certain questions. And then we find out later that jeremybell said I offered them a firsthand witness who was willing to go under oath and tell them firsthand what he knew, and they declined that witness. So he's getting the feeling that it's like they're hemming it in, that they've used the pressure on some of these congresspeople who are getting. I mean, let's face it, who are the congresspeople who have been pushing this? Not the higher level ones, it's all been the lower level ones Chuck.
Speaker 1:Schumer no, but he did the legislation Right and he spoke on the floor once, but other than that, he hasn't been, not in Michigan.
Speaker 1:He hasn't been going on the news networks talking about it, right, no, and nobody's asking him about it. But what I'm saying is who are the ones that have? Luna, burchett, moskowitz yeah, they're not big names, right, they are not the leadership, no, and it seems like they kind of got hemmed in. So there was something really weird about that hearing, whereas it just didn't have the same feeling to it. It felt more like a performance show put on to say, hey, we said we'd have a hearing. And here's another hearing. They had Lou Elizondo. Did they ask him great questions? Not really. And then they got mad at him at one point when he said I couldn't. He said at one point he mentioned. He said I've been told I can only talk about the things you know. I put out my book. I had to go through the adopter process. You know the approval process. That is what the Pentagon has cleared me to talk about and that is all I can say. And then they kind of took a swipe at him about well, I don't want to hear about people's books and it's like. But he wasn't pushing his book, he was saying that he's hemmed in. But one of the great lines was when Lou Elizondo said I had to sign a document saying that I wouldn't talk about crash retrievals. Have you ever heard him say that?
Speaker 1:So then Jared Moskowitz, and he goes I'm going to put my lawyer hat on. He goes tell me about this document you signed. He's like where were you? Like, oh, we was in a skiff, okay. He's like who was there? He's like were you alone? He's like no, it was me and security officer. He's like no, it was me and you know, security officer. He's like okay.
Speaker 1:He's like were you allowed to have your counsel? Look at this document. He's like no, I didn't. He goes I didn't ask, but I wouldn't have been able to because you have to be cleared. You know this document. He's like do you have possession of this document? Nope, they keep it. Did the document say Well, you know? Did it say you can't talk about crash retrieval? And he's like yeah. And he's like huh, you can't talk about Fight Club if there's no Fight Club. And it was such a like, a good way of putting it is like the fact that you were had to sign a document saying you won't talk about crash retrieval in itself means that there is a crash retrieval because if there was no crash retrieval then you wouldn't be asked to sign a document telling you you couldn't talk about it, right?
Speaker 1:so I think people miss that by him saying that people don't miss it. They're just not thinking. They're not thinking like you are getting. It's like when you ask somebody a question and they don't deny it, they say no comment. We all know what no comment means.
Speaker 2:No comment means the answer is yes and I can't say it well, the answer could be yes, but there might be a lot of reasons.
Speaker 1:I'm not getting into it, like that's usually, but the answer usually isn't no, right, because if the answer is no, then you say no, there's no situation whichever answer but I'm saying is, if the answer, like if you ask the question, is there this? You know, yeah, here's this question, is this true? And you say no, it's not true, okay, that's unequivocal, right. If you say no comment, that means you can't talk about it. You can't and sometimes say I can neither. I can neither deny, confirm nor deny it. That's another line, right?
Speaker 2:Well, I mean if somebody said is there an imminent threat that China is going to attack the United States? Well, yes or no is still violating security.
Speaker 1:But they would say here's the question, right, John? Kirby. To the certain person, john Kirby who are these drones? Are they a foreign adversary? What did he say? We have no credible evidence that this is a foreign adversary. That's your way of denying it, without necessarily saying no.
Speaker 1:Oh, no, but if you were to say I can't comment on that. That in itself is an answer, because when Well, that makes people say when is the answer ever? No, that makes people say when is the answer ever? Know that they don't just say no, like if they said hey, are there? Um, you know, are there 12 foot clowns rampaging through new york city? Can't comment right. They'd go no, we've seen no evidence of it. Even if they're going to be diplomatic, they'd say we've seen no evidence of it. Even if they were going to be diplomatic, they'd say no, we've seen no evidence of it. But if they said no comment or I can't talk about that, then you'd be like wait, that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1:So that and stuff, but anyway, so that was my perspective on those hearings. It's worth watching. Let me just say this.
Speaker 2:I can't say I didn't watch it. I did watch some of it. Yeah, I found what I was watching and then it was unfortunate that I was just very busy at the time that it happened, so I could go back and look, because I usually watch it on YouTube or something. What I did watch. I was like this isn't all that compelling, you know, it just seemed you're right, kind of look a little bit like a dog and pony show.
Speaker 1:Dog and pony show they had that guy from NASA who he was part of the NASA team you know and you know he was talking a lot about. You know he had some good information where he's saying we don't need to gather data. We keep being told we need to gather data. Nasa has the data if you can just get access to it.
Speaker 1:That's the other thing people forget, like NASA has thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of hours of footage from various space launches. You could take that right now and you could put it into an AI and say, pick out things that don't make sense. There was this other and it's kind of going off topic, but there was this other um astrophysicist lady. She did something very interesting. She was taking plates from like uh telescopes, you know plates of the sky like harvard observatory has. Hey, this was the sky, this was the star set on you know april 15, you know 1963, and she was going back and looking at it and seeing if there were any things that show up that are then gone, because if it's a star it's going to be there all the time. It's not just Generally but generally, but it's not going to be there one day and gone the next, right Like these so, and she's finding tons of them. And then they asked her they said well, have you looked at all the Harvard Observatory? And she's like there's a large period of time when they destroyed all the plates and they're like well, why did they do that? Who knows, one of the new guy who took over this was back in the day at the Harvard Observatory For some reason had all the former plates of the observatory view of the sky destroyed, not plates of of the, the observatory view of the sky destroyed, not saved for posterity, but destroyed. But anyway, that was enough. That's an off topic, but.
Speaker 1:But basically what I'm saying is that hearing did not. It had some good parts to it. I'm not gonna say it was all bad. It felt less authentic it it it it seemed squandered. It seemed like the questions you could ask those people.
Speaker 1:I mean, let's look at the witnesses. You had Lou Elizondo, great Michael Schellenberger. He was a journalist who broke some stories. Okay, I'm not saying he wasn't, but he didn't have a lot to add. I mean he could say that he has sources that say I mean, one thing that he did say is there is a repository of high quality images, video, right radar tapes, all the things with a chain of custody, a crystal.
Speaker 1:The reason why they I mean this is what, the reason why it's called immaculate constellation and this immaculate is the degree of the evidence. Constellation is that it's a program overseeing a bunch of other programs, but the idea of Immaculate is that the information that it has is not these blurry iPhone videos. It's the stuff from our top weapons platforms. It's the stuff from our top weapons platforms. It's evidence that if you rolled it out in front of the American public and showed it the discussion would be over. That's why you're not seeing it, but anyway, that's what came from it. And then during the same time frame Arrow released another UFO report. That kind of went kind of. There was two hearings and at the same time Arrow released their annual report. Right, usually around October they have a UFO report, similar things they talked about. You know, again, if you read the report there are some very tantalizing bits of it. Of like you know, there are some cases that are truly anomalous, that we cannot explain with current things.
Speaker 2:But then they but nothing grabs the interest of people like what's happening over New Jersey. No, that's the thing it brings it home, Because when you listen to the hearings it's like okay, they give you the data, they give you this and you're right, Like to people that are interested in it, you say oh, really, yeah, and people are not.
Speaker 2:But when someone's on TV saying what is that thing? Yeah, and people are not, but you know, when someone's on TV saying what is that thing? Yeah, it's like I mean, I don't know what they're going to do if this doesn't get resolved at the next hearing, because I think, chris, yeah.
Speaker 1:People's patience. It's like After this, I don't you know like I said. The other thing that I didn't like and this was at the Senate thing is John Kozlowski apparently said well, apparently he did say they supposedly, quote-unquote, debunked the GoFast video. The one got it, the one that's. That's the one where the thing's going across. Did you lock onto a? Did you lock some moving target? No, I took an auto track, that one, and they said that wasn't actually. Again, again, he didn't say what it was. What he said was we think that it wasn't, uh, going as fast as that and it wasn't as close to the water as that. But he didn't explain what it was. But it was also dishonest because it took that video in isolation, where the people who were behind the filming of that video say well, how does that explain the, the bunch of other, the fleet of other objects that we saw?
Speaker 1:at the same time so I mean that was. They debunked it, but like that was dishonest, like that wasn't really debunking it. But to the debunk, to the people who listen to that stuff go. Oh, they explained that one like no, they didn't explain that one. They seem like they explained that one Like no, they didn't explain that one. They seem like they explained that one because they said, well, it wasn't as close to the water, it wasn't going that fast, but they didn't tell you what it was, they just told you what they think it wasn't Right and that was so.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I was so excited for the, for the stuff coming up in in November. When I heard we were going to have one hearing and then two hearing and the UFO report, I was like, oh my God, here we go. And then, as each of those things happened, I was just like why did it feel so different? And then to find out after the fact that, like somebody's putting their thumb on the scale, and then this happened. That's the other reason why I to bring it all back. That's the other reason why I think this is something else, because I almost think like the secret was ready to come out, the ball was going to start rolling and it didn't. And then who's ever behind it said all right, we're going to do this the hard way. You're not going to, you're not going to be open.
Speaker 2:The next time we get together. I think we're going to have a lot more answers, I hope. If I think we're going to have a lot more answers, I hope.
Speaker 1:Yeah, if I cannot imagine a world where we don't have a ton of answers the next time we talk.
Speaker 2:I can't imagine a world where we don't have a ton of answers in the next seven to 10 days. The question will be if this continues and it is actually in other countries, you know, in the same manner, in the same degree of footage and, and the same, how those other countries will react.
Speaker 1:Because they.
Speaker 2:They might not react the same way the United States is reacting.
Speaker 1:So it'll be very interesting. It'll hit that tip. It could potentially hit that tipping point of just there's no stopping it at this point, like if they're I don't know, I just I just I cannot see. Like I said, next, in the next seven to ten days, there can't be no movement on this story. There just can't be right. Either it has to be resolved or if it's still going, all hell is going to break loose.
Speaker 1:There's no way the american public is going to put up with another couple of weeks of like we don't know, boy, we wish we could follow these things back to where they come from. If only we could. You know what? We lose sight of them. We can't.
Speaker 1:It's like I said I know I said this before, but it's the feigned incompetence that bugs me. Like why is it? We can do all this amazing stuff. They're always bragging. We're the best military in the world. We can, you know, track things. We can like there's no, we can defend everything. And then it's like, hey, you got these huge drones flying over the country. Oh, we don't know what they are, we can't follow them back. Oh, they shut their lights off. How tricky of them. Does that mean if I want to evade the military, all I need to do is shut my lights off. Is that what you're really telling me? You know what? The cops were chasing that guy in the car, but you know what happened he shut his lights off, so we lost track of him. No, of course that's not what happens.
Speaker 1:They can still tell you're there, yeah, we'll see, but anyway we've gone. This has been a little. Is this one of our longest episodes?
Speaker 2:It might be, it might just be, it might just be the longest.
Speaker 1:But it's not gonna be the last of the longest. No, I have a feeling there's gonna be so much. There's gonna be a time we're gonna have a lot more. Yeah, I think I'm gonna probably end up just releasing this as one, because there's no point in that. Like you said, this story is going to change in the next week.
Speaker 2:Yeah it could be totally different. We'll see.
Speaker 1:But yeah, so I think we've dissected this one enough. If you stuck with us for the whole thing, or even if you took it in a couple of different bites, good on you, because that's a lot.
Speaker 2:Well, we've had a lot of good things to say. I think so.
Speaker 1:I think we covered a lot of ground here, but anyway, we'll be back with more sometime I'm not going to promise when Sometime in the future, but we will. But until then, I'm Chris and I'm Steve, and this has been talking about some deep shit. We'll be you next time.
