The DARK Truth About UFO Crash Retrieval - Ross Coulthart | DEBRIEFED ep. 76

There was a conversation I had with someone who, I trust, who got very emotional and described a friend of his dying on the moon. I've spoken to over a dozen people, probably 15+ people, who operate, either have operated or are operating inside what we would call the legacy retrieval, retrieval of non-human craft and reverse engineering program. I think one of the most galling, shocking moments for me was when people that I was talking to in the program, who are still in the program, admitted to me that we're using high pulse microwave weapons, HP, M's, to down, to take them down, craft. Have we purposely murdered other beings? Oh God, that's a horrible thought, isn't it? Have we? I suspect we have. I've asked them. It happened to the Begings, and I just get a squeamish look. Do you believe that some of the people you've spoken to, Jake included, David Grush included, are closer to the program than they let on? I can't say. Well, you can just do it. Can people know what I was talking about? Sure. Have you said when people know? I, they will know. I'm pretty sure it will become public. Is it outside of the five eyes? Oh, you could definitely see it on a satellite. It's a building. I said it's a building. It's a building. Is the building the shape of the craft? Yeah. At 10 30 at night, he puts the blindfold over his eyes, and within a few seconds, he says I'm engaged. He says, "Horizon." And I look towards the horizon, and there are these two golden white orbs that just appear on the horizon. These objects do come closer, and I'm just like, holy hell. I was excited. I thought, wow, that was really something. But I was kind of disappointed for Jordan, because we hadn't seen what he said he was going to see, which was the blue hexagon. Almost simultaneously at the moment that I'm saying to Jordan, "Gee, real shame that we didn't see the blue hexagon." You see a blue hexagonal orb, exactly as Jason, that Jordan had predicted. Is there a piece of information you wish you were never told? Yeah. Yeah, there is. I was given the names of. and it wasn't Jake. I was given the names of people who ordered the murder of his team. I'm Henry photographer and former military intelligence guy, which I can prove with IDD-214. It's a fall of either sometime between '80 and '83, we can't remember for sure. We're coming back from a trip to the Ozarks, and we were on Highway 96 between Springfield and Joplin heading west back towards Kansas. When suddenly we weren't. My mom remembers waking up behind the wheel of a moving car on a gravel farm road. The one that I was also ill, my sister must have been a dog vomited, and my mom knew that she had lost time based on the dashboard clock reading. She knew time had passed. Two weeks later, my mom saw a craft land in the park across the street from our house. In this small town we lived in. And two things got out of the vehicle, and walked towards her in the park, and she had a telepathic communication experience with these two beings. They gave the message that they were there to check on us and to make sure that we were doing okay, and two beings re-entered the craft, it took off, and vanished. That's where my store starts. All right. I think we can get started here. You good to go? Let's screw this cat. And then we can start the podcast. Welcome Ross Coltart. It's a pleasure to be here. Yeah. Thank you for making the track, obviously, you know, all the way from Australia. I know you've got an engagement coming up in LAX, or sorry, in Los Angeles, which is still quite away from where we are sitting right now. My brain is still somewhere over the Pacific, so I hope you're kind to me and not too ruthless as you ask me with questions. Yeah. Not too bad. I do have some questions here. That's what I'll eventually defer to, but I have a feeling that our conversation is going to flow quite naturally. We've been, you know, sharing some time together prior to the podcast, went out for dinner, and yeah, lack of conversation wasn't necessarily a problem. It's fantastic. It's actually really lovely to finally get to meet you to be perfectly honest. Likewise, it's also really lovely to look behind the scenes. I've always died to see the area 52 set, and I now know the secret of the area. 52. Right. Yeah. Also, if you ever see me sort of peering over my shoulder, it isn't completely out of paranoia, but I am a one-man crew here. So I'm just making sure that everything is still rolling in case there are some technical difficulties. So it has nothing to do with me being bored by what you're saying, or absolutely fun. Don't take offense to any of that. Yeah, other than that, Ross, I mean, you've led, continually, one of the most interesting lives, I think, of anyone. And not just anyone in the UFO space, you know, we have this microcosm going on, and this sort of little closed echo chamber biome that we live in that is, you know, euphology, but you've led such an interesting, amazing life outside of that, you know, from being a world famous reporter about that. Allow. I mean, I do. You know, you're part of the most prestigious programs, a news program that have ever existed. But now you've quite successfully, I might add, transitioned, not unlike myself, into this space. Do you know, I don't see it as a transition at all. All I see myself doing is applying the same skill set that I've used in journalism for the rest of my career on a subject that, frankly, I honestly didn't intend to come to the conclusion that I did come to about the whole UFO subject matter. I've spoken about this before, but I set out eight years ago with the arrogant, conformational bias assumption that this was all an American black program that, that what we were talking about here were craft, definitely, I mean, you, they can't not be craft. I mean, I think we're at the point now where we know these are physical objects, they're detectable. The US is admitting that this phenomena, this unidentified, anomalous phenomena, but they maintain the fiction that they have no idea what it is. They don't know if it's extraterrestrial. And I guess I started out with very much the journalistic assumption, well, this must be the angst. It must be the Americans. And I was shocked because I'd assumed that there'd been a lot of reporters that have done the same work that I've done, because the thing that really sits with me is this should have been done 20, 30 years ago by a New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, investigative team, applying the same degree of rigor to the UAP subject as we would to any subject, whether it be, I don't know, systemic child abuse and the Catholic Church or the origins of the COVID-19 vaccine journalism does this kind of work. So I honestly don't think that it's exceptional that I've directed my gaze to the UFO. It was a natural progression. And an underserved market, really. Yeah. I'm just deleting my phone here. Sorry. Yeah, I'll shut mine off as well, probably a good idea with what we're going to be talking about. Let me shut this down here. Yeah, I think, you know, I relate to that a lot as a magician, I think. To me as well, you know, people see this other channel that I had created. I spent a decade sort of nurturing and building to all of a sudden, you know, turn my gaze to this stuff. But for me, it very much aligns with the mysteries that I was uncovering before, which were just, you know, sleight of hand mysteries and mysteries. It's how you probably a bit like me thought when you came into this subject matter, you were going to discover the faint of hand, the sleight of hand that was responsible for concealing obviously the American aerospace program that's behind all of this. Yeah. And that was my implicit assumption. I thought there must be. And there is. There is a part of the legacy program that's working with, I believe, crafts that are far beyond known human kin, you know. Now, when you say that, is that a gradual sort of rising conviction through the conversations that you've had with people or was there, was there a turning point for you that just went holy cow? Now, there's, you know, there's all sorts of incidents. And I'm sure that have happened, you know, in the past that are incredibly credible. Number one, which I think was really interesting was the one that happened in New Zealand. which was in 1978, the Kailua, I think the Kai-Kura. Kai-Kura incident, yeah, pardon me. That was amazing because we have footage of this, we have pilots, we have military, we have all this corroborating evidence of like this thing happening. Was there an event like the Kai-Kura event that kind of tipped you to, oh no, their 100% is something? Yeah, there was. And it's funny because I can remember it really clearly. I remember my dad, who was a doctor in a small country town in New Zealand telling me on a particular night that he had seen a UFO and he told the local cop, the local policeman in the little town that we lived in, that he'd seen a UFO and the policeman had talked to him about how he'd also seen it and that he'd reported it. And I lobbed that in my brain in that period of 1978 because the Kai-Kura incident came up very soon afterwards in December. It was probably a week or I've forgotten the distance, but it was a very short period of time. And hilariously, when I started researching the December 1978 Kai-Kura incident, I couldn't believe it because there in the files was the logged report from the local policeman from the town that my dad was in, confirming that he'd seen a craft. Wow, so up until then it was just a story your father had told you. Yeah, and dad was a total skeptic. He didn't believe any of this bullshit. Like everybody, including myself, defaulted to the idea that this is nonsense. We're not really talking about aliens. But the amazing thing was to actually see there in the New Zealand archives a report from a local policeman that confirmed what my dad had told me back then. And it was interesting because this was a period of time when shortly before the Kai-Kura incident that had been an incident involving a young fella called Frederick Valentech in Australia. He disappeared in a light plane over Bass Strait, which is a straight-of-water between Tasmania and Ireland off the southern part of Australia. And sort of, basically, he flew out of Mirabin in Melbourne Airport. And it's a very celebrated case you would probably have heard about it. The last thing he said was it's not an aeroplane. And then you hear this kind of. It's a haunting audio. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] And the official explanation to this day is he crashed into the water. He was flying upside down. There's a whole lot of reasons why that's not plausible for that particular type of conspiracy. There were also eye witnesses to something in the sky. There was even a witness that said there was a craft being sort of commandeered by a flying saucer. I'm not so sure about that. That's one from a farmer. And it's an apocryphal story because it's hearsay. It is hearsay. But what is a good story is there's a photograph. There's a photograph of a very distant object. Shortly before or. It's sunset, right? It's sunset. I see this is where I might disagree with that. I see a fly. I see a fly buzzing in front of the camera and you kind of see its wings. But this is what we're left with. We're left with these details. But more importantly, we have this audio of Frederick Valentich. But you see, the interesting thing about that is. Probably before I got into this subject matter, I would have gone. Everybody was hyped up because of the Valentich story. I was hyped up because of my dad told me he saw. So when the Kokura story came along, everybody in New Zealand and Australia were hyped up. And we all went crazy for something that was just normal, natural phenomena. And I can remember at the time the reports in the newspapers very quickly asserted that what this was were squid boat lights. That in those days when you went squidding, the big fishing boats that were using the squid lights would beam these lights out on the water to attract the squid. And somehow those lights had refracted on clouds and it gave a vaguely plausible explanation. What was fascinating was to read the declassified New Zealand archives files that showed that was complete nonsense and the pilot. There was a guy. They were caught on radar. There was a guy called John Cordy at Wellington Airport, which was a cross cook straight at the bottom of the North Island. And John was still alive when I was writing my book. And I contacted John in Wellington. He was a lovely old duffer and he had an absolute razor sharp memory of what had happened that nice. And we were reporting that people had seen strange light shots. We had someone else ring a sap and ask us if there was an aircraft flying over here because they could hear this funny whistling noise. And then we were seeing these things on the radar. And he described how he and another controller, the other controller was the principal controller that he was looking over his shoulder. They were looking at radar returns and objects moving around the Argusi cargo aircraft, a big lumbering Argusi cargo aircraft, carrying newspapers up the east coast of the South Island from Christchurch to a place called "Blenum" in the upper part of the South Island. And as Dennis Grant, Quentin Fogarty, and David Crockett, the implausible name David Crockett, were filming with a film camera from the cockpit window of the Argusi aircraft, objects coming up to the window of the aircraft. Well, that movement is being corroborated in real time by the air traffic controllers in Wellington right across the water, probably 50-60 miles away across Cookstreet. And the interesting thing was Dennis Grant, who ended up becoming a highly reputable political commentator in one of the top political correspondents in Australia, Dennis is still alive and he's got his notes of what he recorded inside the aircraft. And those notes are corroborating what was being said back to the air traffic controllers. At this time exactly the object is in this position, you know, one o'clock in front of the aircraft. That's exactly what John Cordy was saying, he was seeing back in Wellington. It got even more interesting for me because like everybody, when I was a little boy, in 1978, I was 16 years old. So I was a teenage kid. I just accepted the government explanation. Back then, the Prime Minister of Australia was a guy called Sir Robert Maldon. And he was a cantankerous old bastard who was known for not brooking nodsons and his instinct. And you could see this in the archives was to shut this down as quickly as possible. One of my first gigs in journalism was the New Zealand Herald newspaper in Auckland, which is a sort of flagship newspaper in New Zealand. It's the main sort of national newspaper. And I was the young cub reporter. And one of the gigs that happened in Christmas time was Sir Robert Maldon by that time was retired and living in his beach house at Christmas time. And for some weird reason, it was a tradition on the newspaper to go and interview Sir Robert Maldon in his beach house. And he'd talk about whatever. And I remember I asked him because I was fascinated about Chai Kura. I asked him about the Chai Kura incident. And this is only probably, oh gosh, six years later. He chuckled and referred to how the Americans wanted that shut down as quickly as possible. Whoa, yeah. The Americans wanted that shut down. Yeah, incredible. I mean, that doesn't surprise you in all of it. Wow, what's really interesting is John Cordy, who's now sadly passed away. He passed away about two or three years ago. John Cordy told me how it was obvious to him in the traffic control tower in Wellington Tower. They were very unpopular for corroborating what Quentin Fogarty, the filmmaker, recorded in his film. He professionally reprimanded. Yeah, yeah, basically they suffered. For speaking up publicly. Quentin, who became a good friend of mine, Quentin Fogarty, was an Australian journalist. And he made a film called Let's Hope Their Friendly. He wrote a book called Let's Hope Their Friendly. Because that's what he wrote. You know, at the time when he was up on the plane, he thought, "Geez, let's hope their friendly." And it was interesting for me because I had, in teenage years, been acculturated. I'd quite naturally accepted the explanation that these were squid boat lights. Yeah, or Venus. Well, Venus didn't work at all. No, because it wasn't up during that time. Exactly. And it was interesting because even the New Zealand Air Force investigators accepted that neither explanation washt. Yeah, but that's what was put to the New Zealand public. And it was incredible how quickly it shut the whole thing down. And when you see the footage, what's remarkable about this is that there are so many cases of these glowing discs that sort of emanate this orange-roiling light around the craft. And when you look at this, although it seems a little out of focus, you're filming with this giant camera in an airplane. trying to get this light, you see like a band of darker, or it looks like an unfocused disc. It's clearly not just round. There's like a band around the middle, which I thought was really interesting. Well, I spoke to Bruce McApey about that. I mean, one of, I think, the most respected analysts of UFOs in the last 50 years is Bruce McApey in American. I think he was a physicist. But he had a vague association with a quasi-defensational see, but he did a lot of UFO work on the side. And he had taken the film, a copy of the film, and analysed it for Quentin and the TV network back in Australia that was doing the story. And it was quite sensational because what Bruce found was that the movements of these objects were anomalous. And because you had this multiple cooperation, you had Captain, the pilot was called Bill Startup, Captain Bill Startup, which was a great name for a pilot. And he was a lovely man, a really lovely guy. I got to meet him once, and he lived in Blenheim, nuts and bolts guy, absolutely no doubt in his mind about what he'd seen. And he was angry about the misrepresentations of this being him somehow making a mistake as a pilot. To him, that was a derogatory inference about his profession. It was a slate against his credibility. Because what was commonly not reported was that there had been other pilots on a previous flight, the previous nights, that had seen these objects. So whatever they were, they'd been hovering in that area and doing these displays for quite some time. But the definitive evidence was when you had the hard evidence from the radar tower in Wellington. And the interesting thing was it made no sense to me. I was shocked. For me, it was kind of an ontological shock to realize, I mean, I know governments lie, politicians lie all the time, but to hear from a former prime minister in New Zealand that this was done largely at the behest of the Americans. Why? So bored. And then there was the West all case in '66, which were coming up to the anniversary of on in April, '86. Yeah. And when I was writing my book in plain sight, I heard about this case in Melbourne. And there's a great Victorian UFO investigation group, mainly led by a guy called James Rigney, who, by the way, was instrumental in securing the release of the Wilson Davis document. That's not a story. But James, I approached James out of the blue, and I basically said, look, come, can I come down to Melbourne and talk to you. I'm really interested in the Wilson Davis document, but I'm also really interested in the West all case. And he also told me about the Kelly Kayhoo. Oh, so it tells another famous case. It's a super fascinating. Before a first date, it's basically a classified briefing. You see, you're running a scenario in your head reviewing prior statements and calculating risk exposure, haircut, secured, car detailed, timeline of the last three texts, analyzed. But there is one non-negotiable before any high stakes encounter. Deodorant. You see, I've been using Mando. And what I genuinely like about it is that it's a whole body deodorant, not just pits. We're talking thigh folds, feet. Anywhere that might compromise the mission. I use the solid stick every morning. It's powered by Mandelic acid, which stops odor before it starts. It was created by a doctor who saw how often normal body odor was being misdiagnosed and mistreated. And it's clinically proven to block odor all day and control odor for up to 72 hours. That's not masking it. That's handling it. I've built it into my routine before shoots, live shows, and travel. Anything where confidence matters. And when you're walking into a first date like at the Diplomatic Summit, that matters. So if you want to try America's number one whole body deodorant formula, go to shopmando.com and use code Area52 for 20% off site-wide plus free shipping. Again, head to shopmando.com. Use code Area52 for 20% off and free shipping and support the show. Remember, don't mask it. Mando it. And so I spent a weekend with James going around looking at the Kelly Kay Hill site. And then the great thing was I got to meet a whole lot of the people who'd been present at West all as little kids. The students were, and I'm never thinking these people aren't lying. Yeah, this is real. And then the absolute clincher, the absolute gotcha moment for me was when Andrew Greenwood, who'd spoken previously to James Fox anonymously, he met me. He was the teacher, the science teacher, who had been on the quadrangle with these kids when on the 6th of April 1966, they looked up over the field and there were either two or three or maybe one. Nobody's quite sure there were different witness accounts. One to three objects hovering over the school playground. And there are a hundred plus kids looking up at this object objects. And they are metallic elliptical discs. And as these kids watch, one of the objects lands in an area of forest, which is a place where the kids knew really, really well. And the hilarious thing is the kids knew that land better than the military who came in in their droves and secured the site shortly thereafter. But there's a whole lot of stories, some of which I think frankly don't make sense. There's some elaborate stories where some people claim that they touched the craft. And I'm not 100% sure about that. But I am in no doubt that a group of kids got close enough to see the craft from probably five meters away. Yeah, this is not unlike, you know, the Zimbabwe instance while at the Ariel school. It's a very similar. It's a very similar story. Yeah. But what I love about the West all story and it's coming up for the 60th anniversary and I'm going to be there for it, hopefully, is the military and the intelligence presence. Andrew Greenwood, the science teacher, speaks publicly to a local newspaper, a local tabloid, not tabloid, a local suburban newspaper. And he says, you know, I'm sure about what I saw and there's the quotes of what he said in the newspaper is still available on the archives today. He gets, and this is why he agreed to talk to me. He gets a knock on his door late at night. He opens the door and there's one man in Air Force uniform, Australian Air Force uniform, and there's another man in civilian clothes. And they basically threatened him and he was angry about this, really angry. They threatened him that if he didn't shut up talking about what he'd seen, they would put a run to story that he was an alcoholic and he would lose his job as a teacher. And that's why he didn't talk about it for most of the last 40, 50 years. Was was he an alcoholic? Did he drink? No, not at all. Well, he probably had a glass of wine at Christmas time. Sure, yeah. He wasn't an alcoholic. He was a really decent, honorable man. Wow. Sadly, he's passed away as well. But he, in I think the last two years of his life, he agreed to give a television interview to me and he talked very candidly about what he saw and he was adamant about what he saw being not a craft. He was very precise and very scientific. He said, whatever it was, it was some kind of metallic, coloured, elliptical shaped object. He couldn't say that it was solid because he didn't touch it. It was very scientific and very careful, but very, very precise. And it was very interesting because I'd say there's probably, I don't know, a dozen corroborative witnesses that I've spoken to and there's an Australian researcher who's done some phenomenal work. And he's spoken to over a hundred and I think it's 160 witnesses. There are people who saw Americans on the scene. And this is really interesting. There was a base called the Royal Australian Air Force Base Sale about three or four hours drive north of Melbourne. And the Americans had been operating a secret U2 spy plane flying over the Southern Oceans to monitor for radioactive plumes, radioactive residue from either Russian nuclear testing or somebody else. It might have been suspicions about South Africa. I doubt if it was at that time, but whoever he lost, satellite stuff, whoever it was, the kids that I spoke to now adults in their 60s, they described American jeeps turning up. People wearing American uniforms turning up at the school. They described being threatened by men dressed in civilian clothes. The whole school assembly was told to shut up about it. There was a real attempt to clamp it down. But what I loved about these kids, they're still really cheeky today. They love talking about it now that they're in their 60s. And I'm so looking forward to seeing them in April. Because for them, this was a life defining moment. All their lives, they have lived with this reality of what they've seen. And you know, you've had groups like the Australian skeptics gave me a bank fork award because I was the skept, I was the journalist that said that, you know, I gave this credibility. And for no good reason at all, absolutely no scientific basis to their assertions. They just sweepingly dismissed all of the evidence given by these multiple witnesses. Sure, our first hand witnesses, and just said it's just a bunch of school kids getting excited and confabulating and they were excited about the Frederick Philantage case and it's all nonsense. Yeah, it's still to this day as adults. And if you hear the passion from those people, there is no doubt in my mind that they are telling the truth and that they saw something anomalous. And the kicker for me was Andrew Greenwood having the courage before he passed to speak publicly about the fact that he had been threatened by somebody from what he believed was either military or an intelligence agency. Why? Well, we don't know. I see. We don't know. Why shut down a legitimate public inquiry into what was obviously anomalous phenomena? Why? So, well, that brings me to an interesting question because, you know, we're often faced with like this deliberate secrecy, this cover up. And we hear about it so much through the men in black and through all these other, you know, the legacy program. But at what point in today, in today's sort of UFO sphere, do you think we go from deliberate secrecy to just sort of like institutional confusion? Because we are dealing with that as well. Like there is this like with Congress and everything. I can't help but think that they don't know very much. Like it's, it's the Gestalt that I get. It's the feeling that I get when I listen to the news. It doesn't seem like very many people are in on anything. But then you hear about these Americans turning up at these sites. Like what's the connection there? Okay. I think there's been a change since 2017. I'm really lucky because I started talking to some quite senior people in Congress on background, like not on the record. Before a lot of this became public. And before the decision was made, for example, by the Pentagon to acknowledge in 2021 in that original report from there. I've forgotten what it was called at the time. It wasn't the all-domain and normally resolution office. It was some of the ones of their stupid names. I said, no, I said, I said, but they published a report in 2021 acknowledging that UAPs are real. Whatever they are, they're real. They're not something that can be discounted. That for me was a huge turning point in, I think, public awareness of the issue. But before that time, I would say that a lot of the people in Congress were genuinely oblivious, including, I can say, this members of the Gang of Eight. And I pulled rank with a few people I knew from other stories I'd done to get access to two members of the Gang of Eight in that period. And the Gang of Eight, as you would know, is a group of senior politicians, the Senate Majority Leader, the House Majority Leader, senior people, both sides of politics, who are entrusted to review in the oversight committees the most sensitive secrets of all. And yes, it's largely because there is still, I think, a contumelious disregard in the intelligence community and the military for the idea of oversight by Congress, because they, but they eat very strongly that Congress can't be trusted with secrets. That's right. They're probably right. And I think this lies at the heart of the cover-up of the legacy is a lot of that unignoled special access programs. Like those things don't go through these sort of committee hearings. So this hilarious categorization that they have for compartmentalised secrets, you know, we all know what a special access program is. It's essentially a secret, a compartmentalised secret. And then there are unacknowledged special access programs. And then the biggest one of all are the wooseps that waived unacknowledged special access programs. The wooseps in the ASAPs, if you like, they are generally put before the gang of eight. And it means that there's still congressional oversight. The idea is that there's still congressional oversight by its, by a group of trusted people who can be trusted with those secrets. And that frankly doesn't really work in practice. Sure. And there's still I think holding back of information. There has to be, by the CIA, by the defence community, because they don't trust. Yeah, they'll give them breadcrumbs and throw them a bone, yeah. Yeah. And I mean, there's a whole series of histories. One of my favourite series of books is, you know, histories of the CIA and how the CIA is basically hidden stuff from Congress over the years. And I put myself into their position as an intelligence agency trying to protect the security of operations they're trying to run. I'm not making excuses for them because the law says very clearly they are obliged to reveal this information to Congress. And accountability is enshrined in the constitution, the US constitution. So there is a legal requirement that this be done, but it hasn't been being done. But what, what I'm coming to answer your question, what, what I found was there were people who were denying knowledge to me of any kind of program categorically in about 2018, 2019, 2020. And then when I went back to them after that moment when in 2021, the Pentagon had made the admission that there are UAPs, they were evasive. And I think what's happened in the interim is certain members of the gang of eight, not all of them have been read in. They've been told. And I think this is what's going to be used as an attempt to rescue the tattered reputations of the Pentagon and the intelligence community when the truth does finally come up that they've been lying to the public and indeed to presidents for many decades. I think they're going to use the excuse that certain members of Congress over the years have been read in. For example, I'm pretty sure Senator John McCain was very much aware of the legacy retrieval reverse engineering on what grounds. I can't say. Okay. But I'm very sure that John McCain was. Is that second hand or first hand information? Do you, is do you get that from someone who knew him or do you get that from? I get that from somebody who knew him. Yeah. Very well. Very well. Okay. Yeah. And I, I don't doubt for a moment that there have been key people in the Congress who've been entrusted with this information. And I think that's how when it comes out. By whom though? Like that? Because by another government entity that's that's unacknowledged or by by some faction that's completely removed. There really is, as Betty has discerned, there really is a control group. A cabal of like, I had a situation when I was talking to David Grush and David Grush. Sorry. The control group that you just mentioned. You think that this is outside of any government jurisdiction. These are people working in government or a lot of the cases, but a lot of them. I'd say the majority of them are people working in private aerospace. Right. And they together form this other entity that doesn't abide by any rules. I mean, you know, they're in all of the well-known aerospace companies. Betel Lockheed Martin. Not a law for grammar. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right here. These are people who have been regarded as a safe pair of hands. Often they've come through the rut of the CIA science technology. They're safe people to be entrusted with the secret. And they've been read in, briefed into the program. And periodically, they will bring into the loop key politicians who are trusted. I'm thinking of one in particular, I'm not going to name him. I had an incident when I was doing some research a year ago. And I know what a certain senator was told by a source of mine. And I know he has lied to the public about what he's been told. And it's quite galling to me because he's clearly made a decision as a member of the gang of eight to completely mislead. Democratic Republican. I can't tell you. I'm feeling it's Democrat. Oh, really? Okay. That's interesting, yes. But what I'm fascinated by is there's been a change. And I think what's happened is the legacy program we're treating Congress with utter contempt and not briefing anyone. And that for a large part of the last 50, 60 years has been the status quo. So there's no new, no new friends is the idea. But what they've done in the last year or two particularly is they've started briefing in select senators in particular. I don't think they trust the House at all. They've been doing that out of their hands or force because of their dying out or like what's the, what's the reason behind that you think? Oh, no, I think they're scrambling to protect themselves in the event that this does become disclosed. Right. And they get sued. I think they well, I'm in little doubt that there is some kind of an executive order that regulates a quasi-legality to the continued secrecy of the retrieval reverse engineering program to national security. People I've spoken to who are constitutional lawyers, really top constitutional lawyers tell me that they cannot see any basis under which, for example, successive presidents could be bound into not being able to be briefed even when they asked for it like Clinton, by say an executive order that was passed by Eisenhower or Truman. And it's not an apocryphal story I'm told that there is a secret executive order that was signed probably during the Truman administration. There was one also done during the Eisenhower administration. And that this enshrined the legacy retrieval reverse engineering program and kept it secret from Congress. I think this is what the out of plausible deniability for the president. I was trained as a lawyer and I'm fascinated by what I think is one of the most beautiful documents on the planet, the US Constitution. I think it's an incredible statement of ideals. And the interesting thing to me is how those ideals have been corrupted, sadly, with this story, with the UAP program. Because of this inherent distrust of Congress, because they do, they leak. No, both sides leak all the time. I was a journalist. I've in Australia, I've seen it for myself, where a politician, a defense minister, for example, ordered a leaks inquiry because of a story I'd done. And I knew he was the guy that had leaked me the information. And that's what happens. And governments lie all the time about who's leaking information. They do it for a strategic advantage. And there is a problem with politicians that they do leak because they're covering their butts or they're trying to score a point against their rivals. The problem with that is that then you've got a situation that has developed with the legacy program where noble cause corruption happened. Because this is, this is process corruption. People inside the legacy program decided not to honor the terms of the constitution and to ignore the obligation to report to Congress. And I believe trillions, not billions, trillions of dollars have been expended on this program without the knowledge of the consent of the American taxpayer. And certainly with no oversight, with very little oversight from Congress. Well, I mean, Pentagon has failed every audit in forever. Yeah. You know, and there's trillions of dollars missing prior to the 9/11. Well, we have to be careful about that. I mean, there's been misrepresentation of the things that Katherine often fits, for example, as said, you know, there are audit holes that mean they can't account for money. Sure. But they know that it's gone into a certain program. But as David Grushes explained in some of his interviews, including with me, they're using those programs to conceal this legacy program. So that's how they do it. Yeah, they'll charge you, you know, $5,000 for a bag of bolts. Yeah. To these contractors and stuff. And that's kind of how they get away. It's criminal. Okay. You've, from my understanding, you know, have gotten to speak to a lot of people that potentially, and I don't know that I can, you know, verify any of this, but that potentially are, you know, directly linked to some type of program. And, you know, these are your confidential sources. These are, and so I won't ask you about who these sources are, or, you know, this is, I couldn't tell you anyway. And that's part of your journalistic integrity. And I think that that's really important to, you know, a dear to as someone asking you these questions. I, I want you to have those connections. You know, so I don't want to jeopardize any of that. But what I will ask you is out of all of these claims, what's a claim that came to you that you couldn't report on, not because of national security or secrecy or giving up your source, but because it was just, it was like an incredible claim that you just couldn't verify. Is there anything that sticks out to you that just goes, well, that just, it's an outlier or it's, you know, some type of anomalous piece of information? The one thing I, I can't put my finger on and say categorically hand on hard, I believe is real, but I suspect there's something to it is the idea of a secret space program. And there was a conversation I had with someone who, I trust, who got very emotional and described a friend of his dying on the moon. Wow. And I, what do you make of that? I didn't know what to make of it. Because you have someone crying telling you this, like clearly they're affected by the information they're giving you. Yeah. Basically, I just don't know. I mean, I, I think a lot of the Corey Good claims, Darcy, we has done a great show about this recently. A lot of the wacky claims about the secret space program I suspect are almost deliberate intelligence community disinformation to discredit the whole idea of a secret space program. What I'm talking about is what oddly enough, Tom DeLong has come closest to hinting at, which is that are we operating non-human craft that we've somehow been able to jury Rick using human psionic operators? And using those craft to go to the moon and beyond, perhaps? To the moon and beyond. I mean, I've even been told one of the things I haven't been able to confirm or corroborate to my satisfaction. And normally when I corroborate something, I want to hear it from two or three independent witnesses who don't know each other. And I'm hearing the same consistent story. That's what I've heard from people about the legacy program. I've spoken to over a dozen people, probably 15 plus people who operate either have operated or are operating inside what we would call the legacy retrieval retrieval of non-human craft and reverse engineering program. Wow. I'm in no doubt whatsoever that exists. What I'm, you're asking me, what have I been told about, but I haven't been able to confirm to my satisfaction. That's right. Is the qualitative nature of what's called the secret space program? You're referring to what famously Gary McKinnon had also spoken about when he had gotten into the back end of NASA and saw these ship names that weren't actual ship names and people he couldn't verify and then seeing this craft on a photo. Yeah, I mean, I love the fact that one of them is called the Hillencoder, because Roscoe Hillencoder, of course, the founding director of the CIA. And part of the Fantastic 12, part of Majestic 12 was also one of the biggest UFO disclosure activists of his time in the 1950s. So I love the idea that the Roscoe Hillencoder is a secret space craft. If that's really the case. I don't know what to make of Gary McKinnon other than the fact that I find him highly credible. He doesn't strike me as somebody who's lying. It's one of the few other corroborating sort of anecdotal pieces of evidence that we have confirming this secret space program other than perhaps Heimachead, right, who also mentions this as well. And so there are other data points, though, too. You know, I mean, for example, there was in California, I think it Edward's Air Force Base, a separate astronaut program and they were in training. They were being taught. They were non-NASA astronauts. They were US Air Force astronauts. And a lot of people don't know this. There was a separate space program that's officially acknowledged that was training astronauts for the US Air Force. Now officially, that was shut down. I don't think it was. You think it was just, I think it went black. You went black. And I think what's happening is I suspect that they're operating out of deep underground military bases and different parts of the USA, continental USA. Nothing to do with Space Force. I suspect I are linked to Space Force. But not directly as in like these are people from Space Force going out there. Space Force is probably like what do you make of it? I make a bit more of like an intelligence gathering sort of. Yeah, I mean, it's kind of weird because Australia has actually started recruiting for its own equivalent of Space Force. And ostensibly that's for purely and simply data gathering, you know, monitoring space junk and all of that sort of stuff. Yeah, or you're keeping an eye on, you know, satellites and butaneuro activity. I don't know. I don't know whether the what the, the program that I'm describing is part of Space Force or not. I would be very surprised if the senior command of Space Force was oblivious to its existence. Has anyone that you've spoken to from the program ever alluded to something like this? They have. Yeah. Were any of them sort of read in on these programs? Yeah. The secret space stuff? Yeah. Well, they claim to be. They claim to be more than one. No, just one. That's why. That's why. Okay. So the, the, the, the, the conversation that I had with somebody who described a friend's dying on the moon. How did they die? I don't know. Wouldn't tell me. He wouldn't tell you. But he's, he said he was dying on the moon, died. Oh, he died on the moon. What other information did they give you? Is that it? Is it, I had a friend that died in the moon. He started crying for a straightening. Do you get the feeling? I sometimes feel in this whole story. I'm walking through a room blindfold and I'm just grabbing stuff. It's not going through. I gosh. Yes. And it's so frustrating. And the thing that really, you want to shake someone sometimes. We're like, well, the thing that really frustrates me is if people knew how hard it is to get even that. Yeah. You know, that conversation took three and a half four years to nurture, to nurture, to get that person to the point where they would sit down with me. They would not communicate on any known comm system. Did you seek them out or did they find you? Well, let's go to the basis of how I found people originally. the way I approached this as a journalist was to basically ask myself if there was a program, what sort of people would be in it, and what sort of scientists would be involved in it. And so I targeted particularly scientists and wrote letters to them, good old-fashioned handwritten letters, and posted them with a stamp on an envelope knowing that that's non-digital, so reasonably less trackable. And that was phenomenally effective. In a couple of cases, I literally went and dropped a letter in a letter box without a stamp to make a point that I'd been there and told them that I was in town for a day or so, and if they wanted to, they could come and talk to me, and in a couple of cases they did. And it was because what I was doing was trying to indicate I was following tradecraft. I was respecting the fact that people have no idea how easy it is to monitor using your phone. That's what you've got to do to convince these people that you're serious. And it's funny because one of the things that I found was most effective was sometimes some people were so enthusiastic about speaking to me, they'd ring me on open comps, like they'd contact me through something as wide open as signal or WhatsApp, because it's not hard to obtain my signal. And even though those things are supposedly encrypted, I would never use those to communicate with the most sensitive sources that I try and communicate with. Of course, I use dead letter drops on the dark web, or in person, or in person, or postal mail. Just say, look, I'm going to be here on this date. If you want to get hold of me, you can contact me in this way. And that's what you've got to do. You've got to operate like a spy. You know, it's actually more unsettling than most of the files we read on this channel. The fact that there are companies whose entire business is collecting your personal information and selling it. Not secret agencies, but data brokers. They gather your name, an address, and phone numbers, emails, and relatives, and it package that information and sell it. Most people never knowingly agree to it. It just happens quietly in the background. And if you're someone who researches controversial topics, runs an online platform, or just values privacy, that is not a great feeling. And that's why I use Incogni. You see, Incogni automatically contacts data brokers on your behalf and requests that your personal information be removed from their databases. So instead of you spending hours trying to track these companies down one by one, well, Incogni handles the removal process and follows up. It is simple and it reduces how much of you is floating around online. If you want to take control of your data, go to incogni.com/area52 and use code Area52 to save 60% on an annual plan, because your privacy should not be declassified. How are those interactions with these people? Are these people shaky? Are they paranoid? Are they looking over the shoulder constantly? How do they feel about this? And do they know you prior? Are they? Well, it's easier now. Right. I mean, it's happening a lot more for me. A public figure because I've got the news nation role that I do. And I think that really helps because people know me. They feel familiar with me. And I hope when I really do, I take this really seriously. There was a kind of a realization moment for me where I met somebody in a Georgetown bar in Washington who was normally, I'd see them in uniform. And the uniform they were wearing was extremely senior. And I knew them from another story that I'd done. And they were incredibly generous to me. And I remember they leaned across the table to me and said, it's real, Rosca. And I remember I went back to my hotel that night and I thought, holy shit. Because I was guilty of starting out with a conformational bias. I was doing what a journalist should not do. I'd started out thinking being a smug little smart house, I was going to disprove this UFO nonsense. I really did think it was nonsense. And the interesting thing was the poor I got into it. Good people. Good people are telling me this is real. And this is the thing I wanted to emphasize. These people are patriots. What they're angry about isn't the program. They're proud of the program. They're really excited about the technologies that are being worked on and discovered. They want you, the world, the public to know about it. And they don't think there's any really good reason that it not be revealed to the public. There's two issues. And I don't agree with the analysis that most of the detractors suggest, which is that if you reveal the first, you have to reveal the second. The first issue is, is there a non-human intelligence engaging with this planet? And the answer to that, indubitably, is yes. The second issue is, does the public have a right to know the details of the technology and the developments that we've advanced as a result of the recovery of that technology? Now, the argument that I get back from people and I've spoken to people in the Pentagon and in the intelligence community and they tell me, they think, if you reveal the first, you're going to have to reveal the latter. And I think that's the biggest impediment right now to any kind of government admission. They think that if they tell the public, yes, we've recovered alien spacecraft. Yes, there really is non-human intelligence engaging with this planet. And we've been lying to you for the last 80 years. They think that that will lead to a catastrophic rollout of what we've got. Sure. Yeah. And also having to explain perhaps so many other things in the booties and the murders, the cover-ups, but also perhaps the phenomenon itself. I mean, I personally, and I don't know how you feel about this, but I'm pretty certain that the phenomenon isn't a singular thing that we're dealing with. It is probably multifaceted. It is probably dynamic and changing and it is aware we're aware of it. And there's all sorts of levels to this that we're interacting with. I don't think that it's simply explained away by even words like non-human intelligence. Like this is a broad term. You know, people are going to ask for specifics and they're going to be like, what do you mean? Where are they from? And that's where it gets murky for them because they have to go, oh, they're from here, but they're also from there and they're from under there and they're from they're from a different time and they're from and there's all these interactions that we're potentially having, which will open a can of worms. So it's not only, well, there's aliens. It's what are the aliens? My issue is I don't think there's going to be any kind of government admission about disclosure. I don't think that Christopher Lee is right. I'm certainly not being told by anybody. I'm speaking to that there's going to be any kind of Trump announcement anytime soon. I know Trump knows and I know, I mean, it's public that I've spoken to his son and I know that there is interest in the family and disclosure and seeing things coming out, but I don't think there is any intention at the moment by Donald Trump to tell the world what he's been told privately, which is that there is a non-human intelligence and that we have recovered craft and that we are doing a retrieval and reverse engineering program. I don't buy the idea that to reveal the existence of a non-human intelligence engaging with this planet inevitably leads to the forced revelation of weaponry and technology that we've developed. In the same way that when we developed the nuclear bomb, you and I don't know how to make a thermonuclear bomb and neither should we ever. And if it's true, for example, that we've developed scalar weapons or particle beam weapons as a result of recovered technology, I don't think anyone should know that God help us if that gets into the hands of a terrorist group or our rivals. I can understand why we'd want to keep that confidential from Russia or China who are equally in a race to try and develop the same technology after doing their own retrievals. I'm also in no doubt about that at all. So I'm not trying to be an apologist for the national security state, but I think what they've done is they've locked themselves into a position that I think is unreasonable. And they've convinced themselves that if they reveal one, they have to reveal the other. And I don't accept that one follows the other. And I agree with that. And I also think that it is unfortunate that the bearers of this paradigm shifting secret are people with guns. It's the most tragic thing that exists because the mere idea that we are being visited or interacting with in some way, this other intelligence, is a great philosophical question about our humanity. And by default, we default to what we got to hurry up and make weapons before they make weapons. Hold on a second. We're talking about interacting with these beautiful potentially things that could teach us so many things about who we are and where we're from. And we go straight to that. The conversations get a beat like we were closer, I think, to collective disclosure in the 50s, then we are now when people were talking about space brothers and putting the nukes away and, you know, vanuctions coming down like, I think that was probably a step in the right direction versus what we're doing now is completely just shutting down and militarizing and making everything, you know, a national security issue. I think one of the most galling shocking moments for me was when people that I was talking to in the program, who are still in the program, admitted to me that we're using high pulse microwave weapons, HPMs, to down, to take them down, craft. And what we do is we use psionics to lure them, to bring them, to attract them, to invite them. And for some obscure reason, they keep on coming. That's something we discussed about as well yesterday and something that I've been pondering out a lot on this channel as many of the viewers know is that, like, that seems to me like a white blood cell response, like some type of autoimmune system response, because if they are that intelligent, they're not fish, they're not going to keep falling for the same trap and bait. There is, you know, is it like an AI? That's what it seems to me, but okay, here's my next question. Have purposely downed these craft, right? Wouldn't it be an absolute catastrophe if our first contact with a non-human intelligence involved us murdering the occupants of the vehicle that we were trying to retrieve? Have we? I suspect we have. Yeah, I suspect we have. It's the worst crime I've asked people that have been involved in retrievals. I've asked them what happened to the beings, and I just get a squeamish look. I don't know what that means. I don't even know if there was a being on the craft that they're talking about. They just don't want to answer the question, but it's the anguished look that they give me that concerns me most of all, and I think that's the ethical quandaries behind what we've been doing on the rationale that what we're doing is giving ourselves a strategic advantage against our potential foreign adversaries. We've rationalized ourselves into a military group think that what we're doing is the right thing when the thing I find most fascinating is even, for example, Jake Barber, who went public with me last year, year before last, Jake talked openly about the love, the overwhelming love that he felt from whatever the intelligence was that was associated with the craft that he was recovering. It was life-changing for him, and I don't think I'm speaking out of turn if I say that for Jake, that was a defining life moment. It changed his life. He made a decision, and incredibly, he's stuck to it, to speak publicly, because he thinks the public has a right to know what he knows. Yeah, that's where it gets really murky as well, thinking about that. For me, it breaks my heart hearing that that's a possibility. It really does. It's a very upsetting and probably the worst crime humanity could commit. Oh, just imagine. Imagine if that's true. And the thing that the thing I find most confronting is, at the moment, the official position still of the Pentagon is we have no evidence at all of extraterrestrial engagement to planet Earth. Yeah. And they won't say NHI engagement with planet Earth for some reason. I noticed our friend Chris Sharp has put that to Susan Goff at the Pentagon, and she won't allow him to use NHI in substitution. It means what they've done is they've very subtly convicted a response that just giving them some wriggle room for when public disclosure does happen. They can say, well, no, we didn't say ET. We didn't say it was, you know, we said it wasn't ET. Yeah, synthetic santeants is probably the reality of the matter. I think there's something like that that gives them wriggle room. I mean, the best I've got from people about the accounts of bodies that they've seen are that these are some kind of Android, some kind of biological. Yes, synthetic intelligence. Yeah. They're constructed objects. But that seems to be the ones we shoot down. But also, don't forget, there's a distinction between what we've been shooting down in more recent years and what we recovered right back in the '40s and the '50s. That's right. And what was visiting us willingly and communicating with us and, you know, there seems to be a vast sort of spectrum of different beings interacting with us all the way from, you know, Antonio Villasboa's first encounter, the hills and then going on from there from, you know, a damn ski to, you know, Dan Fry and all these other human looking ones in your discussions. It seems to me what I'm gathering is that a lot of the program people are more reticent in discussing the beings with you. Is that fair to say? I think they're scared of talking about it because they're morally squeamish about making any admissions about it. Just to continue the question that you asked me originally is what are some of the things that I've heard that I haven't been able to corroborate to my satisfaction where I feel that I can say confidently that I think it's true. The other thing that I do believe is quite possibly the case, but I haven't been able to substantiate it to my satisfaction. I've only heard insufficient data points to make a conclusion is the allegation that there are beings that have been collaborating with humans, right? So the implication being that there is an ongoing collaboration between humans and non-humans in some kind of unspecified treaty agreement. I keep on pointing people back to my interview with David Grush, where I pinned David down on a line in his dobser, in his pre-publication security review approval, where he was approved to talk about agreements. And I saw that line about agreements and then I thought, "What does that mean?" And you might notice when I go and sit down with David and take him through it, he just can't go there. But it's quite clear that you're talking about agreements between America and non-human intelligences. Have we made agreements with non-human intelligences? That's the kind of information I really hope national leadership is able to get to the bottom of. I need to pin you down on this. Are there agreements between non-human intelligences and the American government? I think that's a question that I would like to know all the details of as well. And I believe there are agreements that have been made between non-humans and humans. And I do think the US government was involved, but whether it was done formally by a president or whether it was done by an agency of the United States, like the CIA, on behalf of the human race, imagine the ethics of that. Yeah. I mean, this is the thing. Imagine how Russia, Britain, China, the rest of the world will feel if they learn that the Americans concluded to deal with a non-human intelligence 60, 70 years ago. And potentially with the wrong ones. You've heard the same story. Yeah. And I don't know if that's true. But because one of the things that you and I both know is that there's a lot of sprinkling of disinformation, you know, there are the Richard Dotties who just love galley spreading little droplets of falsity to try and so discord inside the community. And the UFO community itself is a sort of a sewer of snide, barbs and rasping criticism. It needs to be a more concerted and unanimous group trying to sort of fight and push for information and disclosure, but it's doing its level best to stab each other in the back. And in that context, that's what helps the intelligence community and the defense department try and keep on pushing the line that there is no evidence of extraterrestrial engagement with this planet. Has not the issue. Has there been discussions among these people, and I bring it back to the people closest to the programs? Because obviously, you know, you and I are both public figures. And I'm not, you know, anywhere near as famous for any of this as you are. But I do receive my fair share of stories and, you know, reports of, oh, I met this type of, you know, alien and had these type of arms or this type of head, or it looked like us or, you know, it was a small guy, it was a tall guy, all of these different things. But has there been any of that any species talk from these people? Obviously, the grays. The grays is like the, it's almost a unanimous, almost unanimous. short-grace or tall-grace. short and tall. Short and tall, Grace. You know, it's funny. I just want to make this observation. The fact that Dr. Eric Davis, a hugely respected physicist who is making an assertion that he has been briefed by a former president, Herbert Walker Bush, about Mantids, Mantillion, Ritillion, Nordics. Nordics. It's mind-blowing. We're talking up with teams in the south-western, I think they're a reptilian in south-western way to study and present to the presentment of that title or in that title. And this is the thing that I wrestle with as a journalist that this is on the record. I think I can't remember if he did it under oath or not. It was, there were members of Congress present. Yeah. Yeah. But, you know, he could be, I mean, even if it's not under oath, he could be accused of misleading Congress. Sure. You know, if he lied, David Grush did it under oath. You know, at what point does the institutional legacy media go, "Oh, there might be a story here." This is the thing I just don't get is the glacial slowness with which the legacy media is even beginning to address this issue. It should be, I mean, we're way past the probative basis for taking this seriously now. It's so obvious that there's a there there. Yeah. But what's going on? But why? Yeah, how much of a there is there there? I mean, look at, for example, what's happening with the Epstein file. Sure. At the moment, Congress has developed a momentum with the Epstein files and they would say it's because of what's been revealed in those files. And yes, what's being revealed in those files is pretty disgusting. But the interesting thing is what's been revealed in UAP testimony under oath, deposed witnesses giving evidence to Congress. David Grush, a former very senior intelligence officer, giving evidence under oath to Congress. And I know multiple witnesses who've not yet become known to the public, to the media, who've given evidence to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the ASC. First hand, went to the oversight. There's been a lot more witnesses have given evidence that have been publicly disclosed. And I'm perplexed as to why these committees haven't developed more fangs to go and chase down the information that they've been given. David Grush has given them the Times, Dates, Places, Locations, Names, literally the door numbers. Go and open this door and have a look. Is that disheartening to him? Yeah. Yeah, I'm sure it is. Yeah. I mean, I'm not speaking out of tune. I'm sure he's finding it as frustrating as we all are. And I think the simple problem is that what's happened is there's been an incredible power play behind the scenes where certain key senators in particular, majority leaders have been taken aside and discreetly spoken to. And they're just given enough privileged information because information is currency. How many sellables in his name? But what that's done is it's shut down Congress momentum. And so we were going really well towards the end of last year. It was looking like we were going to get disclosure laws, new disclosure laws that were absolutely essential. I mean, there are contractors. I'm talking to people who are not defense department employees or intelligence community employees and people don't understand this. They don't get the protections, the whistleblower protections that exist under the current laws. One of, in my view, the most important parts of this new legislation was to extend those protections to contractors and make sure that contractors were given the same protection. So if you're somebody working for, or let's say, Northrop Grumman, did I say Northrop Grumman? Lockheed Martin. If you want some of those people to come forward, you need to give them protections because they have to feel that they will be legally protected, that they're not going to be punished, and that there will be a sanction against any institution that tries to punish them for speaking publicly. I feel like I'm kind of reading between the lines here, but, you know, Jake Barber, is there a reason why he stopped sort of his initial push? He had this momentum after your interview, and it was made quite a splash, and it placed a lot of things, and you know, Northrop Grumman came up quite a lot in the following discussions after that in this range and this, you know, these these things happening over there. Do you know the reason why Jake has sort of opted out of, you know, his initial? You say he's opted out? Well, publicly, at least, it feels that way. I don't think he's opted out at all. I think he's done all he can do within the law within the law, I see. So for somebody like him, he's at our instigation, we said to him, would you testify? Would you be willing to testify to the Congress? And he said, yeah, sure. So we filmed him going to the Congress and giving him his evidence. He gave them chapter in verse on what he knows. They know who he's talking about, and he's described to them the details of, for example, the blue on blue incident that's been talked about. He's talked about the incident where he believes he and his team, a special operations team, was set up. They believed that they were the subject of an attempt by a private corporation to murder them. It's getting much more serious than that doesn't. And if your Jake Barber, there becomes a point where it frankly doesn't make a lot of sense, why would you? Why stick your head up? If Congress isn't going to show the spine to follow this up, the will, it's pretty easy to get an impression of what's really going on in Congress. And if you get the impression that political leaders are just treading water, they're not taking this seriously. They're just humoring the media. I mean, there are good people in Congress. You know, we all know them. A lot of the key members of the UFO UAP caucus, they're doing the right thing, pushing for disclosure, but they're not powerful people in the Congress. It's the gatekeepers in the Congress, the opinion leaders, the people who control the numbers, who have to be swayed. And at the moment, they've made a calculated decision based on, I think, a lot of lobbying from the defence and intelligence community to quietly sit down and go, "I think I'd go ahead." Do you believe that some of the people you've spoken to, Jake included, David Grush included, are closer to the programme than they let on? I cannot say. Yeah, I can't say. Okay, but what I can tell you is, I became aware of David Grush from people in the programme. They said to me, "You need to find out about this guy." I said, he's asking good questions. He seems really well-motivated. That this might be this public-facing cover might be not as, might be just some type of like surface cover to allow them to give out some information, but that in reality, they might be a little deeper into the programme. I don't buy the line that Jake or David are part of a controlled disclosure. No, no, that's not what I'm asking. I'm just asking if what they've disclosed, they might know a lot more than they're letting go. Oh, yeah. Yeah, no, I'm not talking about that. And it might be involved a lot more. No, and I think particularly David, I mean, David, frankly, was cleared. I mean, I was privy to information from sources unrelated to David. When I was checking, David, that had mentioned him. There were people who were in awe of David Grush. Wow. I mean, literally, David was carrying the presidential daily brief and secret documents to the White House on a train with a colleague escorting him. I mean, that's how trusted he was. He had knowledge of, I think, over 2000 special access programmes right up to WooSapps. He was one of the most highly cleared people in the Defence Department for secrets. So he's privy to a lot of programmes. And the really interesting thing is, when you look at how he came to the realisation working with the UAP Task Force, that there was this parallel programme that had been keeping it secret from him, it blew him away. He had the, not the conceit, but you know, he had the strong belief that he'd know about it. Of course, he'd know about it. I'm cleared for all of these secrets. Why don't I know about this? And then when he asked friends of his, literally in the cafeteria at the Pentagon, what do you know about this claim about legacy programme involving UFOs? people sort of gave them a bit of a nudge and then you realised it. was real. And that's the interesting thing is I was going to tell you earlier, one of the people that I've met in the course of my investigations is a form of very senior official at NASA. And they are an absolute luminary of the defense establishment. Somebody who you would automatically think would have been read in to the program because of the roles that they played at the level that they played in the defense department. This is somebody who worked at an extremely high level in NASA and also went and worked at an extremely high executive senior executive level in the defense department. And miraculously they agreed to speak to me and they said, look Ross, if this is true, I promise you, I do not know anything about this. And I became aware of the fact that the person three rungs down from him in NASA was the gatekeeper for the legacy program. And this was a person who was in charge, I just recently found this out. This was a person who was in charge of a lunar reconnaissance mission that's incredibly significant in terms of anomalies on the moon. And what freaked me out was the realization that this is so controlled and so clever that you can have the person who's almost at the apex of the entity completely oblivious and unaware of the fact that there is the secret program that's, I believe, very strongly hiding from the public knowledge of things that NASA has seen over the years and obscuring photographs and hiding data. I know how many people do you think are involved in something like that? Like, okay, at the tip, I've heard numbers anywhere up to like 24 or like, this is, you know, at the very tip, but just beneath that, like, what was it to be? I mean, thousands, right? There would have to be thousands now who are written. I mean, that's a inconceivable number for people to think about, you know, but obviously, if we go back to Manhattan Project, there was, you know, 130,000 people involved. I mean, for the people who say that it couldn't possibly be kept secret, the Manhattan Project is a perfect example. Yeah. We're it not for Klaus Fouche, who was the Russian spy, who penetrated the Manhattan Project. It might have stayed secret for a lot longer from the Soviets, but the simple fact is one traitor can blow this. And I can tell you the level of surveillance in the, in the legacy program is just insane. How do you know that? Because of the measures that my sources require me to go to, the techniques that I have to use in order to communicate with them. Have you ever caught them sort of listening in on you? Have you ever had an instance where you're like, oh, I see you there. And they kind of run off or like, no, no, no. I mean, these people are patriots. Yeah. I mean, the thing that I feel, I feel an enormous sense of responsibility about is these are good people. They want to serve the country. They want to serve their country and they're proud of what they're doing. Of course, as the people who worked on the atomic bomb were proud and they were also heroes. And what they feel is that this is a program where the reason for the secrecy, they think has subsumed everything else. It's like, it doesn't really matter anymore. What the reason is, the secrecy is paramount. Right. And it's insane because it's got to the point where the rationale seems to be. And this is my perception. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the reality, but my perception is my takeaway is there is no good bloody reason why this can't be revealed anymore. Or none that's apparent to you. They've just locked themselves into a secrecy. It's easier to lie and keep it secret. Unless, you know, again, unless the secret requires them to divulge not only criminal activity, but more so things that will unwind the fabric of our reality. Well, I think I was the first to suggest this. I was a journalist to covering this South African Truths and Reconciliation Commission. And I don't think a lot of people get angry with me when I say this because they want public trials and they want people prosecuted for murder and all this sort of stuff. And maybe they should be. But one of the most effective things I've ever seen to stop a nation state from tearing itself apart was what I saw in post-apartite South Africa where to clerk the president at the time, ordered a Truths and Reconciliation Commission. Very good immunity. Handed a power over to Nelson Mandela. And, well, Nelson Mandela was brought in as president. And I watched a boss secret service agent, a former guy who'd been involved in killing members of Swapo, the anti-apartite group, what they categorized as a terrorist organization. I watched an incredible moment where the family of the man who'd been killed by this guy beaten to death in prison. Listen, this guy talked about what he'd done, the crimes that he'd committed. And he knew that if he gave a full and candid confession of what he'd done, he was exonerated. There's nothing the state could do to him. And I strongly believe that was far more healing. And that's certainly what the family told me of the man who was killed than putting the guy in prison for 20 or 30 years. And letting him hold on to all that. For that man, the fascinating thing for me as a journalist was seeing that killer. And it was killers on both sides. In that conflict, you had black killing, white, white killing, black. It was a really nasty, intersenant conflict. It was a restorative thing for that country. But I guess I suppose the difference here is that these people aren't operating under government, you know, oversight. And that's the problem is that we can offer them this immunity, but they're going to get a bullet to the back of the head. Yeah. Well, I mean, some of them have. Yeah. And some of them have. Yeah. Well, this is the incredible thing about this. And this is what really angers me because Congress has dropped the ball. And this is who we should be angry with. You know, at the moment, we can see, but the congressional response to the Epstein story, I don't think the current administration is going to get away with trying to bury the Epstein story. It's pretty obvious that there are no Republicans who are saying we cannot tolerate this. These are little girls that have been raped by ugly establishment men. This needs to be revealed. I think it's going to be fascinating over the next few months to see the impetus building because it's very like the impetus that built the public outrage that sparked the church commission into the CIA's abuses in the 1970s. What I'm wondering is whether we can get momentum for the UAP issue out of that as well as part of a broader investigation into not just VIP elites having sex with little girls on an island to budget budget for Epstein, but the whole idea of a deep state, which I never used to believe in. I used to think that was paranoid right wing nonsense. The whole idea, but wouldn't that also be a great misdirection? What, investigating the Epstein material? No, I mean, not in the sense that it shouldn't be investigated, but in the sense that maybe there is, you know, in light of recent, you know, age of disclosure coming out, there's been a little bit more public interest in it. No, it is a misdirection. You see, I think what lies at the heart of all of this is there's something broken in the America that I grew up. I can honestly tell you as a boy, revering. You know, we looked in Australia and New Zealand when I was a kid with war at America as the leader of the free world, a country that lived democratic ideals and principles. And in law school, we studied the US Constitution and it enshrined these rights and we studied the story of how these rights had been won and the founding fourth out of us dictated these rights and put them down in a constitutional document. A bill of rights is so lucky, you know, the Americans are so lucky they've got that document. But what's happened is those ideals have been squandered. I mean, they're there in name only in expression of ideal only. They're not really being practiced and we see the frustration, the public frustration with what's happening with the Epstein story, the fact that there really is a group of people who are being protected, frankly, by people in power. The government is misusing its authority, its legal power to stop further investigation into people who quite properly ought to be held to occurred. And there's really, I don't think, a huge difference between the potential illegality in propriety and I think constitutional issues that are raised by that, especially when politicians are involved in potential administration figures and the kind of issues that are being raised by the UAP subject. What we've got here at the heart of our issues is a constitutional crisis. Does America care anymore about democracy? 50 years ago, a newspaper, The Washington and post pretty much single-handedly propelled public awareness about alleged crimes committed by people close to the president, you know, the extraordinary revelations of Watergate. The Watergate family, yeah. And the involvement of a president in a cover-up, ordering break-ins into psychiatrists' offices and the Watergate complex to get dirt on the Democrats. Incredible scandal and it led to reforms that instigated oversight protections in the Constitution and in the Congress that were a warning to the public, don't let this happen again. And the amazing thing is we have, because all through that time, the one secret that they sat on that they protected was the UFO secret, the UAP secret. And if, and I believe it is, it's true that people have been murdered to protect these secrets, intimidated, bullied, threatened, their lives destroyed. You know, people basically be hurt, their jobs taken away from them, their security clearances stripped for no good reason. If that kind of state intimidation and misuse of lethal force has been used to exert a control over this secret, why isn't that just as important, if not more important than the the fact that there's no momentum on the abstain case? Oh, it is no, there's no question that it is important. And there's no question that there are, you know, I think a lot of people feel this way, even if, even if they are quite passive about it. The problem is that that's kind of always existed. But that's the that's what I agree from the government is a new, the resigned skeptic view of the world, which is, ah, yeah, these mungrels, they're always going to lie to us. They're always going to be deceitful. There they are. They're always going to, and look, you know, I love the histories of the CIA that show that the real history of the CIA is just about skull dug right. The levels of illegality and lies. I mean, the fact that Alan Dulles and James Jesus Angleton did what I think were totally illegal things when they were running the CIA, and withheld misled presidents, withheld information from elected age authorities, that enshrined an attitude in the CIA, which led Johnny Kennedy to decide he wanted to blow the organization into a thousand pieces. And I'm really angry about it. And I don't believe President Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin. I think there was a conspiracy and the evidence is overwhelming of that. And you get these pompous asses in the usual establishment newspapers who sweepingly assert and the op-ed articles that they write every year or so, you know, these conspiracy theorists who basically speculate that there was some kind of, you know, a plot by the CIA. It wasn't a plot by the CIA. It was a plot by individuals within and without the CIA, Cuban emigres, Alan Dulles. I mean, no doubt that that is integrally connected to the UAP. Of course. He also wanted nukes to be gone, you know, and that was a big problem as well because you have these, you know, generals who are like new capyhen. Yeah. And I just noticed today I was reading the latest article by Geoff Crookshank, my Australian friend who believes that the MJ-12 documents are almost certainly real, which the someone, yeah, yeah. And basically what he's looked at in his most recent analysis is handwriting of President Truman with handwriting of Truman allegedly in the MJ-12 documents. And it's clearly identical to the sort of eyes and how everything that, yeah, more importantly, it refers to things that weren't known about at the time that the MJ-12 documents appeared. That were only released, I think, in 2023. Wow. And so it's interesting. Really interesting. So we're in a situation where increasingly the provenance of the so-called MJ-12 documents, which suggests a government conspiracy, a cabal of people that are trying to protect the secrets of the UFO mystery for the benefit of a certain group of people in the United States. The fact that even if that's being done as a kind of noble cause process corruption in the interests of the state, by a few people who are doing it to protect maybe an executive order that was signed right back in 1947 or in the 1950s. It just doesn't wash in this day and age that you could have a situation where Clinton or Obama, Ford or Carter weren't able to be briefed on that information. And they were making decisions as the person nominally in charge of the defence forces of America, nominally the commander-in-chief, not knowing that the president didn't have a right to know, and they were making integral decisions about the deployment of strategic resources of the military and the intelligence community. There's just something broken in a state that allows that kind of thing to happen. There definitely is, but how do you break the news that you have a treaty with aliens to the population? Where's that line of like what do we tell them? If anybody's going to do it, I think it's Trump that's got the balls to do it. I don't think any other president would have the cajonais or the impetuousness to decide to do it. I think Trump might just, but I don't want to disappoint people, but I'm seeing, I'm hearing no evidence from anyone. None of my sources are telling me. His daughter went on the record recently. Ah, his daughter-in-law. A daughter-in-law, sorry, my bad. Laura. Yeah, went on the record recently saying, "No, you know, he's got something up his sleeve, Tape Deal." Well, she's hearing stories. Yeah. And look, you know, I don't know. I mean, bottom line is I would have thought that some of my sources would have heard about it by now if there was a speech being prepared. And at the moment, I'm not hearing any suggestion that there is. Let's shift gears here, but I want to talk. Thank you for for that lovely train of thought on the corruption of the United States agencies. And I think we all kind of feel the same way. You know, we're all distrust is growing. It's not, it's not dissipating. And this is the thing is that it's so corrosive. Yeah, it really is corrosive. And I think that's why it's, this issue is correct, capturing the public imagination. Right. It is. Well, I don't know about you, but I'm just overwhelmed by people wanting to engage and talk about the UAP issue. Yeah, everyone except Flat Earthers are, are, are really happy about their conspiracies coming true. I think the Flat Earthers are the ones left in the dark. They're right way. Literally you're admitting to everything. We got UFOs. We got this cabal of like children eating, you know, politicians and I'm sorry. There are, there are some of these wild claims that I just can't take seriously, you know. Have you, have you, okay, I want to talk about the beings a little bit more because this is something that I'm really interested in in a philosophical way, but also just in, I think it's really interesting. We hear a lot of these tales and stories. Has anyone ever come to you in any credible sort of fashion with the information of reptilian beings, being among us or being interacting with us or us having encountered them? Has, has any of, and look, it depends what you call credible. Sure. I'm at a really interesting point in my own research where I wrestle with the fact that as a journalist, a lot of people say, "Oh, it's only a witness. That's not evidence." Right. And witness evidence is evident. Of course it is. It's the best evidence. And what we do in court is we test that evidence by cross-examination. We hold that witness to their evidence and try and find holes in it. So I talk all the time to people who are first-hand witnesses who say they've had experiences with beings. Yeah. And I'll be honest with you probably up until five years ago. I used to giggle at them. I used to think of them. At the reptilian being specifically? Any of this. Any beings. But I used to, I mean, I said to Whitley Strieber when I interviewed him last year. I said, you know, Whitley, I would have laughed you out of town five years ago. The idea of aliens coming into your bedroom at night. Sure. And taking your semen or taking you onto a spaceship. I mean, it's so easily ridiculed and stigmatized. But what I'm wrestling with at the moment is, like John MacDew, the abduction phenomenon, or let's call it more neutrally, the experience of the phenomenon where people claim to have moments where they have been taken somewhere. Yeah. Sometimes it seems to be voluntary. Yeah. It's some physical, non-physical. And they're having encounters with beings. And so sometimes they're reptilian. For me, the big one in recent years was I had several individuals contacted me completely independently telling me how I'd started talking about downloads. And I'm really fascinated with consciousness. And I'm sure we'll get onto consciousness. But I'm fascinated with the idea that the real mystery, I don't really care anymore about the nuts and bolts claim of craft aliens. It's kind of like tangential. To me, the real mystery is consciousness and what's going on with human minds and what's the meaning of our relationship and all of this. If there are beings that are engaging with this planet, why are they interested in us, us humans, at least some humans? I keep on coming back to this consciousness mystery and a lot of people have been telling me about what they get are downloads. In some cases, in many cases, it's either creative downloads that are inspired to write beautiful art or to do beautiful art or write beautiful music or scientific ideas. Literally schematics, diagrams come into their heads and they write them down. I've had this described to me by multiple people, multiple occasions. In a period of time about 18 months, two years ago, a lot of people started responding to me when I just casually mentioned the blue guys. I just said it casually. I just said, "Are you mean the blue guys?" I said it almost as a flippant comment, "Oh my God, I was just swamped. My inbox just completely filled up all over the world, peaking to writing to me about their engagement with the blue guys." One example, there was a guy contacted me from a European country and he had a dream, semi-dream in that liminal moment between dreaming and waking where there's a blue being, talking to him. Then he's sitting in his living room and he's seeing what look like hieroglyphic images and he's photographing them and he sent me pictures of these images. I sent them to somebody I know who's associated with the National Security Agency, the NSA. He said it was like Sumerian, and like ancient Sumerian symbology. He couldn't translate a lot of it. A lot of it didn't make sense, but what was fascinating to me is the idea that there seems to be something engaging with human consciousness, or at least the consciousness of some humans, trying to communicate in a lot of cases downloading and talking about beings, a lot of them were these supposedly benevolent blue beings, often humanoid, but taller. Not unlike what Jason Sands even described as being physical. It's interesting because that was the one where I was completely overwhelmed. You got from zero. I went from zero to hundreds. I was kind of embarrassed because a lot of them contacted me hoping that I would put them on camera and interview them and it's like, "Do I?" I'm wrestling with this as a journalist. At what point do I start giving credibility to the idea that there are people giving consistent witness statements of what appear to be first-hand encounters with a phenomenon that appears to be a non-human intelligence that is engaging with them often in a semi-dream state, but which appears to them to be real. That's something John Mack wrestled with as well, was the majority of these interactions with these beings seems to be non-physical. That doesn't necessarily mean a dream. There is some type of in-between non-physical realm that isn't quite a dream and that can even leave you with physical markings. There is this overlap as well. It begins to get very complicated when you try to explain the physical side and people have a hard time swallowing that. Then to go from that to be like, "Oh, but the non-physical is also real." You go away a second. Non-physical doesn't mean real in my brain. Non-physical means not real, but that doesn't seem to be the case when the information that you're pulling from this non-physical can translate into something very real. This is my problem with a lot of the phenomenon. Jacques Velay has talked about this, that whatever it is, we know from what's called "Slide 9," which I wrote about in my book, this briefing document that was prepared for an undersecretary of defense, which essentially was the UAP task force or SAP briefing the defense department about what they'd learned about the phenomenon. One of the things that they were telling the defense department was that whatever it is, it has the capacity to manipulate human perception. I think they use something like cognitive inputs or something like that. Essentially, when you read between the lines, what they're describing is the ability to alter human perception. I told you the story yesterday, and I'll tell you publicly in a limited way, I spoke to a very senior Australian politician who contacted me out of the blue. He'd seen a story that I'd done on Australian TV, and this was a person I was shocked that they rang me. They'd had to get my phone number off somebody and pull a favor, and I was like, "Holy hell, I cannot believe this person had rang me." He said, "Ross, I would deny I had this conversation if you ever named me, but I want you to know what happened to me." He was a very senior minister of the Australian government. So, retreat plus level in the administration. He is standing on a set of steps in Sydney, Australia, looking out over a public area where there are cars moving around, and he's waiting for his ministerial limousine to come and pick him up. His press secretary is standing beside him and there are bodyguards standing around him as well, which probably gives you an idea of how important he was. He looks up and he sees what he described to me, and he's adamant. He says, "I wasn't hallucinating. I hadn't been drinking. I had been up for lunch." He looks up and he sees a gigantic, spherical, not spherical, elliptical, metal disc hovering over the square. And he's looking at his press secretary who's looking up perplexed as well, and he can see that he's looking at something, but he can't see what he's seeing. And he realizes, whatever it is, it's definitely real to him. It's projecting to him that it's there. But as he said to me, he said, "I can't say for sure that it was there, but it wanted me to know that it was real." And he said, "Why would it do that?" And I'm at a disadvantage in the sense that to protect this person, I can't reveal the role they were playing. So if I was to say, it was a very senior role. And it's interesting that somebody in a very senior political leadership position was being shown, projected to their perception was being manipulated in some way by what appears to have been a non-human intelligence representing itself to them in a way that could not be perceived by other people. And so that's why I'm often wary of it even saying that when we see craft or even beings, I wonder whether there's a phenomenology that's capable of presenting itself in any way or whatever way. And I think sometimes you and I were talking yesterday about mantids. I'm talking to people who say that they have been visited by mantid beings. And I'll freely admit five or six years ago, I would have laughed them out of turn and gone. They're completely crazy people. These people, whether what they're seeing is real or not, I believe that they have had what they perceived as mantid beings in their home. And there is not a trace of guile in the way that they are telling me this story. And what's interesting is those mantid beings are telling them to engage with me. And it's getting quite personal because this is happening quite a lot to me. And I don't think I'm important. I'm just a journalist. I really truly believe all I'm doing is following an absolute bald hero of a story. And frankly, it suits me that the rest of the media don't chase this up because at the moment, very few people are running around chasing it. You're on the ground floor. It's just a mind-blowing story. But what intrigues me is you can't rule out the possibility that what this all is is the one phenomenon representing it. So manipulating the different perception. And when you say that, I immediately think back to Jake Barber's incident with this ape-gone craft, and he gets overwhelmed with the sense of love, what's to stop them from imbuing us with those senses as well. There are tales from people like Dan Burish and take that for what it's worth. But you know, he would also say that these beings would, when looking into their eyes, flood you with your own endorphins and give you a sense of calm and peace and almost euphoria. And because of that, you felt this sense of familiarity. You felt the sense of like, oh, I know these people, they're good. And they would essentially, he said that it was the rogue entities, the ones that took you at night that did that to you. But the really interesting thing about that is if they can do that, a lot of people automatically default to the idea that like these are loving beings. That's right. That's what I'm saying. There might be a sire. It could be that they're just manipulating us. And I had that thought a lot. And it's interesting. I get very frustrated with people who decry the people who say that there's a threat here. Right. Because if you're a military person or an intelligence, counterintelligence person, by definition, what we're talking about here is a threat. Sure. Because we don't understand it. And it's not that it's evil or malevolent, but it's capable of being evil or malevolent. And it's got the capabilities, if it's got the capabilities to manipulate our perception, think about the implications of that. If it can make people feel differently. Imagine if a world leader could be manipulated to feel differently about a decision. Yeah. The difference is that I'm very resigned to the idea that I'm not the apex here. I certainly know and not. And I think a lot of people in power struggle with that. And that's probably the reason for wanting to, you know, defense up and try to, you know, I don't know, defeat these things or at least have the capability to defend yourself against these things when it's crystal clear that if they wanted to, we wouldn't be here. We wouldn't be allowed to be here. And there would be some other, you know, I mean, if you look at, for example, what our friend Patrick Jackson has talked about, this kind of sphere. I don't think Patrick's got the whole story right. Yeah, but I do think that, and a lot of people are telling me internally that a lot of what Patrick is talking about is actually hitting the right. Yeah, there's an AI system defending this planet. And maybe there are malevolent beings. And certainly collars Brazil describes phenomena where people were killed. They were mutilated. The genitals were cut off in some cases. Bloodloss. So shocking that the cattle mutilation stuff that doesn't seem very friendly. It's not very nice to go around murdering cattle. And yeah, I mean human mutilations to mutilations. And frankly, there's a lady I'm talking to. She's in her 80s, her late 80s. And I find her account compelling because she, she actually went to a doctor and discovered that she'd been pregnant, but she had no memory of ever being pregnant. But her body had the classic signs of somebody who carried a baby. And yet there was no evidence of that anymore. Where was the baby? And she tells me this incredible story about her. She's been in touch with what she says of benevolent beings that have shown her what's planned for the fetus that they took from her body. And what do I do with that? I mean, how do we even begin to assess the credibility of a witness like that? Do we discount them out of turn? Do we after five or six people have told me the same thing start giving it like John Mac did a degree of credibility? That's where I'm sort of wrestling with at the moment with the abduction phenomenon because I've started going very gently down that rabbit hole. And I'm I freely admit as a journalist, I'm a bit scared of it because there are so many people who are with no disrespect to them, mentally ill, who are drawn to this subject matter, who make dramatic claims. And you know, a lot of the time I can pick them because they write in capitals or they put 20 stamps on the letter when they post it to me. You know, there's there's there's signs of mental instability. But a lot of these people are highly credible, intelligent, professional people who just happen to have an experience that they can't explain that involves them very strongly believing that they've been in touch with a non-human intelligence. Yeah, I think it's important to tell those stories from my opinion. It's easy for me to say as someone who for the most part provides entertainment in this space and doesn't necessarily provide like a rigorous journalistic approach to this as much as you do. And you have this credibility to uphold that you've created, you know, throughout your entire life. And that is, that is, you know, much, you've got to be much more careful than I do with this stuff. But I think that there is a value and an importance to let people and people who are obviously mentally stable to tell their story without this idea of is it credible, is it not credible? And just give them a safe, comfortable space to tell that story so that they don't leave anything out because a lot of times what happens with witnesses, as I'm sure you know, they'll tell you a story, but they're withholding the craziest part of the story. They're keeping to themselves the most wild, unexplainable part of the phenomenon for fear of just that for fear of being ridiculed. And so they'll tell you the cliff notes version as I was taking a board of craft or, hey, I saw this UFO in the field and it was this big and they'll tell you how fast the wind was blowing about time a day and what direction it was going. And you dig a little deeper and they go, yeah, well, two nights before that, you know, I came home and all the cupboard doors were open in my house, but they won't tell you that. It's funny. I a few months ago I interviewed Larry Warren, who's a very controversial witness to the Rendlesham ref bent waters case of UK, citing where a craft allegedly landed in a forest in Suffolk, England at the location of a very sensitive nuclear armed American air force base during the Cold War. And I did what I do as a journalist, you know, I'd read about Larry Warren and I thought I'm going to bring him on, but I have to put to him and I'd warned him in advance. I've said, Larry, I've got to ask you some difficult questions because there are inconsistencies in what you've said previously. You've contradicted yourself. You know, some things don't quite make sense. You're contradicted by other people. They say you made this up. And it was funny because I actually felt I'd been quite even handed with Larry and that I led him to the conclusion because he was very much at cross odds with Colonel Charles Holt, who I do believe impeccably. Charles Holt was a Colonel deputy commander of the base and he spoke out publicly that he had seen a craft of some kind moving through the trees and he was angry with Larry Warren because he believed that Larry had confabulated that he'd made up a whole story about a separate event where he'd seen the craft on the ground and British policemen taking photographs and, you know, a whole series of events that Charles Holt said didn't happen. And in the course of the interview, I did what I'd done my analysis on. It occurred to me that Charles Holt was talking about one incident in the forest and he didn't know that Larry had gone later than the evening to another location where there was an open field where another event occurred where a whole lot of people described an event that took place that involved allegedly beings coming out of the craft and some kind of film being taken by the US military on the scene, a whole elaborate cover up. And there were problems because Larry had a memory that Colonel Holt was there. And to me, I'm trained to analyse plausible explanations out of conflicting facts. It struck me as obvious that what had happened if there was a plausible prosaic explanation for this as a real event. It struck me as obvious that potentially what had happened was Larry had mistaken the earlier part of the evening where Charles Holt was in the earlier incident where he was within in the forest and he'd placed him at this later incident and that's why Charles and he were at odds. I felt I'd done a reasonable explanation to sort of try and find a way to make the two witness statements compatible. And oh my god, there's one particular person, I won't name them here, but they sent me the most abusive message saying I was a shame to journalism because I had attacked Larry Warren. I actually think I had quite a civil conversation with Larry and for me it was good to see Larry exposing himself to cross-examination. Yes. And I think adjudicating himself well. Yeah. And what I don't like is there is a view among some in the experience or community, people who purport to have had experiences with the phenomenon where you almost have to have an article of religious faith. You must believe me. Otherwise, you're a complete bastard and I'm never going to speak to you again. And the people I look for are the people who are prepared to be in some cases aggressively cross-examination. Yes. Because I think what the public want is they want those inconsistencies to be raised. I mean, I envy you and Jeremy Corbyl and George because you've been able to talk directly to Bob Lazara. I've approached Bob Lazara a couple of times and I have a very forensic way of interviewing. And it's been obvious to me that Bob doesn't want to speak to me. And I think potentially that's because he knows that I'd be giving him a bit of a blowtorch about things that are allegedly inconsistent. But what I do, people often think that's me just being a smart Alec, you know, trying to attack people for no good reason. What I'm trying to do is give him the opportunity to explain and show an explanation for those inconsistencies. What's an inconsistency about Bob, you know, for example, the MIT staff comes up a lot. People criticize his academic record to say that he doesn't have two master's degrees from MIT and Celtic. I mean, I'll say this. I know Bob Lazar almost certainly did work at Area 51, which of course is officially denied. I believe he did. And I strongly know that S4 is real because I spoke to Dave Fruhoff before he died who was essentially one of the people running logistics at Area 51 who confirmed to me that he'd heard about the existence of S4, he'd never been there. But he was also, he'd also spoken to multiple people who had seen Bob Lazar at Area 51. Right. Not when he was there. So it was kind of weaker shepherds, but to me it was quite persuasive evidence. Sure. That Bob was potentially telling the truth. But what's another, what's another thing that you would like to get answers on if you had the opportunity to ask Bob? Well, look, one of the things that's used to discredit him is the allegation that he ran a brothel. Sure. And so what if he did? That's what I'm saying, too. It doesn't bother me. The slightest has nothing to do with it. I mean, last time I checked, brothels were legal in Nevada, right there. I would also say that to, you know, they were hiring a lot of wild people back then. Sure. The other one, the other one is Moschovium, element 115. And, you know, the scientists say that it's in his isotopic ratios that he describes. It can't possibly survive to be useful as an energy source in the way that he describes. And I'm not a scientist. I'm not a physicist, but I would love to put that to him and hear that and not to suspect to you or to anybody else that's interviewed him in the past. I think what the public want to see is, and this is what I'm trying to do, I'm trying to bring the rigor of somebody who's trained in investigative journalism to questioning the people who have become some of the stalwarts of UAPology. And the thing that fascinates me is when I do get that opportunity, I mean, I've recently interviewed people, for example, I've brought multiple witnesses that have been involved in sightings of craft on what are clearly US military ranges, where there's an obvious awareness by the military that these craft are there, and it does appear that there is a collusion between whatever's operating that craft and the military to the extent that they know about each other and they're not surprised by it. And they're at first instinct is to try and cover it up. And I've found the way that the witnesses respond when I cross examine them and treat it like I would in a court case where I'm trying to find a reason to be skeptical. There's a lot of people in ephology who say, "You shouldn't do that." Yeah. You're attacking that person. And I don't agree. I think it's a difficult thing because I always try and treat people with respect even if I think they are charlatans, but the best cross-examination in a court case is where in a methodical way the layers of truth are opened and blind Freddie can see whether somebody's telling the truth or lying. And that's the thing I find most fascinating about the UAP subject is that not a lot of that has happened. There's a tendency to credulously accept, I mean, for example, on Travis Walton, for example, I've not spoken or interviewed to Travis directly on camera yet, but I'd love to do an interview with Travis where I go through what I perceive from my reading are sometimes inconsistencies and questions that get raised by me about those cases. And it's difficult because I think there's a tendency, one of the things I'm really uncomfortable about is you go to UFO conferences and some of these people are treated like heroes. Yes. And they are. And they are. And they are. They are brave because they're speaking of. But they're held on a pedestal that people aren't comfortable questioning. I don't think we should be credulous. Yeah, sure. I think we should be seeing to be questioning and just saying, "Listen, hey, listen. I just want to speak here. Don't get angry, but can you explain this?" You said this here and then you said this here. That sounds different. Can you explain that? And there's been a number of occasions where I've actually had people really angry with me saying, "How dare you do that?" You know, you're questioning their credibility. And in fact, I don't believe I am at all what I'm doing is giving them the opportunity to verify those. Yeah. And to enforce that credibility. Sure. Yeah. So that's probably the right take and, you know, it's something that I'm aware of as well. When talking to people, I try to, as much as I can, as much as I can read the situation, to do that without affecting the energy that we're creating in order to keep this safe and vulnerable space for them to go into deep detail about it. Well, to me, if somebody acts up, if I start asking somebody questions and they act up and go, "Look, how do you ask me these questions? I didn't come on here to be cross-examined. I'm going to ask them to leave." Sure. Because it's pointless. Yeah. I mean, to some degree, people have to be probed. Sure. And, you know, if they're not willing to do that, then it makes me question what their motives are. Yeah. It's a good point. Yeah. Yeah. There is a line that I'm discovering is I'm learning all this stuff and I'm a student of interviewing people. I've been only been doing this for a few years. But it's something that I've learned is quite a skill to do with people is tow that line of I want you to be as open as you want to be and as you've ever been. But I also want to make sure that we're covering the important things that you've claimed. But I don't want to be disrespectful and there is a line there that has to be danced upon. And I feel like maybe you've had so many conversations where you've gotten to the point where you're really good at it, but you also now are slightly, it feels like you're kind of over that and you're like, you know, let's just cut the shit and let's just get to get to the core. And then after that, we can chitchat and have a good time. And I'm learning from this and I'm watching and I'm learning. But the thing I'm finding more and more is there are a lot of people in the UAP community of people who what's the stuff I do and they treat it too much like entertainment. Yeah. This shouldn't, I mean, it's entertaining. I find it fascinating. But at the same time, the entertainment shouldn't be the main driver. What this is all about is an opportunity to try and ascertain objective truth. And it's why even though at times I find him annoying because he's becoming more of a debunker than he is a skeptic. People like Mick West are actually very useful and positive because they keep us on our toes. Sure. I mean, I think he raises legitimate points from time to time and I think on occasion he's been right. Absolutely. I mean, I had a guy from France email me yesterday and he sent me an image of an object moving super, super fast across the sky. And within about five seconds, I could see that what it was was an insect and he focused with his autofocus on the insect, classic parallax, moving across front of frame, very close to the lens. And he'd measured the speed at something like 4,000 miles an hour and he was thinking, you know, this is an amazing UFO video. And I was really polite. I just went back to him and I said, look, I'm really sorry. This looks like this and looks like this is an insect. And it's almost certainly that because you're focusing on animals in the distance. And it's a beautiful picture and I can see exactly what's happened here unless there's independent evidence. For example, if you've got a witness that actually saw the object at a distance, I can't make any assessment of this. Absolutely. There's absolutely nothing other than an object that's moving close to the camera. And he was a decent fellow. He came back to me this morning and he said, actually, you've got a point. I hadn't thought about it. Big on him because I've been faced with that a lot as well and I've learned quickly that you've got to be really careful on how you sort of break that news to people because they covet it. Yeah. I do. It's often just seeing a video like that for them is confirmation is a life changing event. And you know, for you to be like, well, I genuinely think that's just a reflection of a passing car or I think that's, you know, finding that debunk is, yeah, is is a line to to walk as well, it's very, it's very finicky with people and their belief system is attached to it as well. You know, you're questioning their sanity, their mental faculties, your questioning their faith, your questioning all these things. Like, you know, we bring up Chris Bloodsoe, for instance, you know, I've spoken to Chris and I've spent time with him and his family and his son and I've actually seen something out there and I documented it when I was with Ryan. We have these rove lights appear right over the ocean and it was incredible to see and it was witnessed by other people running down the beach. They called the Coast Guard because they're like, there's something going on out there. Like, it was a real thing and, you know, but going from that to, I gotta be careful because the people who do follow Chris Bloodsoe can, or obviously a lot of them are also linked to religion and faith and I've known that like, hey, you know, sometimes when he posts a video, some of these things might have a prosaic explanation. I might not be smart enough to know, you know, if that's a satellite or if that's space debris or if that's a real orb, I might not have all that information. But for me, it's always important that people just do it for themselves and go look at things. But it is a very dangerous place to comment on. - The other thing that I get so frustrated about is when people say to me, do you believe in UFOs? And to me, that's a ridiculous question. - Belief is ridiculous. - Belief is an expression of religious faith that implies the suspension of knowledge. - Yeah. - It's like when you believe in God. - Yeah. - That means fundamentally, you are asked to suspend your faith and just accept that God is real because we can't definitively prove that God is real. - But it's a good exercise. - Sure. - And I encourage people all the time on this channel to suspend their disbelief. Let's read through this Psalm 1 document. And, you know, suspend your disbelief and suspend your belief. - Sure. - Suspend everything. And let's just take the information, hold it up to the light, see if we can find any connections and possibly form a hypothesis on what this might be. It just isn't exercise. But I agree with you. Belief is a detriment to data collection. - Sure. - It is a filter. It is a lens through which things get distorted and biased. - And it's why I'm at the point now where when people send me videos, especially with AI, it's almost pointless, somebody sending me a video now. I don't want to discourage people from sending me videos, but unless there's multiple independent witnesses who are prepared to say, I saw that object. What's recorded on that camera is what I saw. I will sign a statutory declaration and support the fact that that object in the video is what I saw with my own eyes. Or, you know, it's caught on radar, traveling it 2000 miles an hour. That's why I know it's true. - Sure. And there's a huge problem, I think with AI, now crafting bogus videos to the point where it's next to impossible to decide whether something's real or not. - Getting close to. - Yeah. - Getting close to. Depends on the age demographic, I'll say. If you're on Facebook, it's rampant with that. I want to get to a question. Before we get to, I do have some audience questions I want to get to, which are a lot of fun. But I do, I'd be remest if I didn't, you know, at least address the giant UFO. You know, I'm gonna get asked by people. And so I have to follow up. Any updates? - I can't say any more than I've said. I mean, when people know what I was talking about. - Sure. - I mean, when people know? - I think we'll know. I'm pretty sure it'll become public. - Is it outside of the five eyes? - I've never said any location and I've never seen anything that we could pay where it is. It's outside of the continental United States. - Okay. - Representative Eric Burleson has recently indicated a willingness to investigate that allegation. And I'm really. - Yeah, I mean, I'd point people to what representative Burleson is talking about because I'm really hasn't by the way that he's said publicly that he too has heard that this is a classified piece of knowledge. - Is there satellite imagery of some type of architectural or geological flag that would tell us that, oh, that's like, 'cause people on the internet are scouring the internet, we found things in Korea and Greenland and all these different places. - It's not me being smug. - No, I know something. - I'm just trying to see if I can pull anything that I'll say you might be allowed to. - At times, I regret even mentioning it. - I understand why. - Because it's speculative. - No, well, one of the, it's not actually speculative in my book. - Oh, it isn't. - No, no, no, I'm pretty confident it's real. But what I really think people don't understand is, it serves a very, very important national security purpose. And you would not want the fact of the location of this object to be officially linked in any way to the purpose for which it serves at the moment because it could potentially cause some serious problems for the men and women that work in that facility. Okay. - And it's interesting because, would you say from space or not? - Oh, you could definitely see it on a satellite. - Okay. Is it architectural? - It's a building. - It's a building. - It's a building. - Yeah. - Okay, that's all I wanted to know. - Yeah. - That's a good. - Yeah. - And that's a good hint. When people hear the purpose of the building and why I've had to be protective, journalismistically, one of the things journalists often get accused of doing is being reckless with national security sense of information and you burn sources. - Well, yeah. I mean, one of the things that's happened from time to time is people have inadvertently revealed like the whole Valerie Plame story where ironically a member of it of administration revealed the name of somebody who was non-declared C.I.A officer. And that was a dangerous risk for that person. You know, it was putting her life at risk. I would never want to do anything like that. It's more a risk because whilst I don't agree with everything that certain intelligences are doing to conceal the legacy program, they do serve as part of the five eyes that my country is part of and your country is part of and America elites, it serves an incredibly useful purpose in terms of protecting national security and ideally keeping world peace since at least the end of World War II. And so the last thing I want to do of course is anything that jeopardizes there. - And I wouldn't want you to and if this is something, you know, you want it straight away, get away from, you let me know. But I do want to ask one more question is, was this corroborated by multiple people because you say it was such conviction this isn't like someone dying on the moon here. - No, I'm very confident from multiple sources that this location serves the purpose for which I've described. - These sources are first-hand witnesses? - Yes. - More than two? - Yes. - Wow, yeah. - That's incredible. - Yeah. - Well, it's not incredible, it's reality. - I mean, the realities can be incredible. - I mean, the interesting thing is, this is why I think the Trump administration needs to take some leadership here. And this is why even if Trump's not thinking about making a disclosure in July for the anniversary of Roswell, he bloody well should be, because there is so much that's leaking right now. - Right, wow. - And it's not just that site that we're talking about, there are other locations of alleged recoveries of craft in contemporary history, which are not yet publicly known. And it's not just Magenta and Kingsman that has taken Roswell. These are other locations around the world. And I know the U.S. has investigated them. I've actually seen imagery of scientists investigating one site in particular, and that's something I'm investigating. This is not an isolated incident. The thing that fascinates me about this is, there is literally, whatever they are, I don't know whether they're a DOE team, Department of Energy, or whether they're part of the Department of Defense, but there is a team that is deployed to investigate things like this. And it's still ongoing. And these inquiries continue to this day. And I don't know whether it's done through the auspices of some government agency, or whether it's run out of private aerospace. All I know is that there is an entity which is incredibly well-resourced, which deploys to investigate these things. And I don't like the DOJ, or. What Department of Justice? - Yeah, who do employees? - No, I suspect it's DOE related, because as we know from the Peru story, it was people wearing DOE jackets. But, for example, I've spoken to special forces tier one operators from the UK, the US, and Australia, who have described to me being involved in what they believe were retrievals, where they've been on operations, where as a soldier as a grunt, you're not told what you're doing, but it's pretty bloody obvious to you what you're recovering is not normal, prosaic, mundane, human technology. Wow, last night we spoke about the Aslan Institute as well. Have you shared that information? Has that been shared? I've talked about this, I mean, I think what you're talking about is prior to the establishment of Skywatcher, there was an event that I was invited to by Alex Clocus, who's one of the co-founders of Skywatcher along with Jake Barber and James Fowler and others. And Alex was very much the private equity funder who helped bring the money people. And so this was an opportunity to show to potential investors what Skywatcher aspired to do science-wise. And I'd known Alex because we'd spoken multiple times previously. We were friendly and he invited me to come to Aslan to speak to that audience. And it was quite something because it was a bunch of extremely high net worth people who came in on their private jets. I've never seen so many private jets in one place at one time. And Jake Barber came along as well as did David Grush and so did Jordan Josack, who ended up becoming one of the psionics who was working with Skywatcher. I'd been talking to Jordan for quite some time and I introduced Jordan to Jake and to Alex Clocus and that's how he became to be involved with Skywatcher. And what we were aspiring to do at Aslan was to give Jordan the opportunity to demonstrate psionic inviting. And I really admit that up until that point, I thought it was probably bullshit. A little woo-woo. Yep. I really did. For me, it just seemed utterly implausible that you could connect human consciousness to something at such a distance and somehow summon it or invite it to come. But at about four o'clock in the afternoon before the evening, when we were meant to have this inviting session, Jordan came to me and just said, "I've got a really clear image in my head of a blue hexagonal craft." He said, "It's a blue hexagon, Ross." And I was so struck by what he told me. He said this in front of David Grush, in front of Alex Clocus, and in front of a number of the premier investors, we were sitting in Alex Clocus' hotel room at Aslan, which is a beautiful retreat. If people don't know it, it's the most beautiful place, a gorgeous spiritual retreat that sits right over the Pacific Ocean, but three hours drive south of San Francisco. It's just divine, beautiful location. And for the telling of the story, you need to know that it has hot springs, beautiful pools where people can take their clothes off and sit in the pools. And there was a large group of people who had come, the girlfriends and the boyfriends were all sort of disporting naked in the pool, having a jolly old time. And I was a bit shy. I'm a middle-aged bloke. I was a bit worried about being accused of leering at all these gorgeous 20-year-old beautiful girls side. I just kept my respectful distance, but we knew that on the other side of the hill from where we had this session on the lawn, there was this party going on, basically, where they were in the hot pools, disporting themselves, and buck naked. And we very seriously sat down on our yoga mats and lay down on the grass, and we were invited to meditate and open our minds to the idea of inviting a non-human intelligence. And Jordan covered his eyes with a blindfold. And within, like what seemed a few seconds at about 10.30 at night, he told me at 4pm in the afternoon that we were going to have this exciting over blue hexagon. And at 10.30 at night, he puts the blindfold over his eyes, and within a few seconds, he says, "I'm engaged." I said, "What do you mean you're engaged?" He says, "I'm in a craft." And he says, "Horizon." And I looked towards the horizon, and there are these two golden white orbs that just appeared on the horizon. And I'll protect the anonymity of people involved. There's a beautiful Chinese businessman of Renan in Silicon Valley who stood up spontaneously and goes, "We love you, we love you, come closer, come closer." And as he's doing this, these objects do come closer, and I'm just like, "Holy hell." And Jordan's just lying there in this prone state. Oblivious, really. He's oblivious. He's just meditating, and he told me later that he was inside one of those objects, bringing them closer. And then there's a whole lot of beautiful young boys and girls who stand up, and we're all standing there. And it's quite emotional. I freely admit, it's the most incredible feeling. We all had this kind of loving feeling running through us, and I think that was actually really important. Integral turf. Yeah. And what Alex had done really well, I felt, was I think one of the things that is commonly lacking in UAPology is the feminine. You know, there's two few women in the subject area. It's too blokey and too male and testosterone-filled and aggressive. What I loved about Esselin was he'd done 50% men, 50% women. And I think that was integral by design to why it worked. Because the girls bouncing up, you know, there was less male ego, and it was more loving to be perfectly honest with you. And all these beautiful young women as well, it was like a fashion show, it was just gorgeous. And as they stood and started treating these objects to come closer, they indubitably came closer. How close? Probably within 152-100 meters. That's very close. Yeah. That's under a thousand feet. Yeah. And there was still hanging over the ocean, and then they just slowly took off and sort of went out of sight. It was over pretty quickly, but the story's not over because I was excited. But I was kind of disappointed for Jordan because we hadn't seen what he said he was going to see, which was the blue hexagon, yeah. And I was sad for him that I was also annoyed because it kind of disproved my conformational bias. I really hoped to see what he said he was going to see, and it would prove definitively in my mind that this was real. Almost simultaneously at the moment that I was saying to Jordan, "Gee, real shame that we didn't see the blue hexagon." And he's going, "Yeah, I know. It's really strange. I had a really strong sense that it was going to happen." Literally at the point that he's saying that somebody comes running up and says, "Rost Jordan!" So in the end, what we saw, and you can use this photograph at this point, were two sets of images. You see what I can only describe as, on the other side of the hill, looking down towards the hot springs. When you get to the top of the hill, you're looking down from the Isle and Main meeting room. And you see adjacent to the hot springs, where all these young men and women were back naked, swimming in the hot springs, swirling faces in a kind of a translucent mist. It's like amorphous sort of, and people who'd been there told me they'd seen that. So it's not just something on the photograph, it's just a refraction, and then the second image that you'll see here is what happened subsequently, which is a blue hexagonal orb, exactly as Jordan had predicted, sat down, further down the beach, and just planted itself on the lower part of the beach next to the ocean, and just sat there for a while. And it was seen by most of the people who were up that night, looking down probably at 10, 30, 11 o'clock at night at that location. How long did this occur? How long was this there for, do you remember? Not very long, you know, and then did it just disappear, did it take off, do you remember how it left? I don't know, I can't remember, that's the weird thing about it. That's strange. Yeah. It's clearly a hexagon when you look at the photo as well, because this isn't, like, you can count the sides, you know, it's not, I mean, it's a very clear, structured, translucent, and there seems to be something around it also, it seems to be like, it's, yeah, like you hear about this cubanosphere type, you know, description from, you know, so that was weird and graves. A lot of people ask me, have I ever had a. sort of an ontological moment where I've gone holy hell. That's got to be done. That was it for me. That was where I was going. Crikey, that might just be something to this. And I sort of looked at Jordan. I think he was pleasantly surprised as well, you know, and kind of relieved. It gave him the credibility. And I suspect that might have been instrumental for why he went on to become, I think, one of the lead psionics for Skywatcher. Sure, it lived though. Sure it lived. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for sharing that. As many of you know who watch at home, if you want to have an opportunity to, you know, ask our guest a question. What are the many perks that we offer here in the membership is the this, that opportunity. So sign up if you like. If not, enjoy these questions. Here we go. A lot of fun ones here. We may have covered some of these two, but from Stan B. Did you leave anything out of in plain sight? You didn't believe back then, but you've changed your mind on since then. Oh yeah, no, absolutely. Yeah. No, definitely. I didn't believe that we were capable of shooting down possibly killing non-human intelligences. It just seemed preposterous to me. It seemed like a wacky conspiracy theory. You were aware of it while raining? I was. Yeah. And I mean, what happened to me was actually quite extraordinary. I had this idea of writing letters as a way of getting in touch with people because I knew I've done stories myself on intrusive surveillance. I'm really fascinated with spying and communications interception. And there's a spy system called echelon, which I revealed exclusively was an official program 20 something 25 years ago on a show for Channel 9 Australia in collaboration with a British investigative journalist called Duncan Campbell. And echelon is essentially a communications surveillance operation run by the Yucusa UK USA with the Yucusa Agreement, not the Japanese Mafia. Oh, and I was I was thinking how do they insert themselves into this? And it's the Five Eyes Alliance by say the UK USA Agreement. And essentially, I was tipped by sources in Australian intelligence that we were part of the spying operation where, you know, communications surveillance happens. And it made me realize just how wide open spying is and how easy it is to break into anybody's communications. And so it just seemed preposterous to me when I was investigating for my book. I'd been told by people as part of my research that the best way to communicate with people was to write a letter. And so I wrote about 160 letters to people. And I did a lot of work in universities looking at thesis documents that have been written by people in aerospace. I went to certain libraries and accessed papers that had been written by people when they were young graduate students who I assumed might very well have gone into the program. And I was essentially looking for people who seems like a leap that seems like a wild leap to like it worked. Yeah, that blows my mind. It worked. Because people who'd been writing about propulsion systems 25 years earlier, some of those people responded. And that was essentially a way of providing them with some degree of security that their communications weren't being intercepted. And so to make the point very early on in my research, I became aware that there was this program. And it seemed preposterous to me that there was this program, but I knew that it existed. And that was also because I'd met a guy called Nat Cobitz, who was a Director of Science Technology Development for the US Navy for 30-something years, very, very senior guy who when I wrote him a letter, just turned out that he was sadly dying from cancer. And he calculated that he had nothing to lose by talking to me. And so he very candidly assisted me with my investigations and gave me the names of people to speak to and helped open the door for me. So I became aware very early on that there were allegations that craft were being shot down. At that time, I wasn't even aware of the psionic connection. Nobody had told me about that. It just made no sense to me that we would act militarily to shoot down a craft. It just seemed like a preposterous story. And then because of these letters that I'd written, people were reaching out to me. I suddenly realized I was getting multiple corroborative sources telling me the same thing. And that's where I started learning about psionics. And that was something else that I didn't believe back in. It's shocking. It really is. It's like, you know, with flying, it was like flight of the navigator. Yeah, correct. I mean, it felt like a Hollywood movie. Well, in that movie as well, there is this child at a NASA facility interacting with like these oscilloscopes and trying to get them to. This sounds like the Dan Sherman stuff. It's wildly predictive. Yeah. I mean, I just wonder sometimes, I mean, my friend, Bryce Sable, who I did a podcast with called Need to Know for a very long time, he told me that he's aware and they're doing a podcast themselves, actually, he and his former colleague with Dark Skies, the TV series that they made. They're doing a podcast very soon that's going to be going into detail about how the pentagon, the intelligence community try and manipulate Hollywood movies to plant ideas. I'm really looking forward to it. Yeah, really predictive programming. Yeah. There's a lot of that kind of seating that types. Oh, yeah. And the crazy part is there's no secret there. We all know that the CIA was involved during in post-war to sort of attenuate a lot of these stressful feelings that people had at home in regards to the war, the Cold War. People were scared. And they're like, how do we appease the population? We'll give them romance, give them cast a blanket, give them all these, you know, and that's what they did. Sure. All right. Great. Great question there, Stan. Yes, I love this question by Alice Alien. From Alice Alien, you get the chance to be the first Earthling to interview an ET. What three questions would you ask? I would ask what one question would you ask, but feel free to elaborate on any other questions. I would certainly ask them whether they created humans. Oh, good one. I would ask them whether they believe that they transcend their physical bodies and have a consciousness that survives after death, which I think is integral to this whole ET story. I do too. And the third question I would ask would be who are the bad guys and who are the good guys? Those are great questions. Leave it to a seasoned professional to run laps around this alien. Oh my gosh. That first question is really interesting too. You know, if you look at different species that we describe, some of which look like us, some of which are these graves or the mantids or the reptilians or what have you, they all seem to be bipedal, forward, like forward facing eyes, multiple digits on their fingers, the chance of evolutionary convergence creating Michael Muster's. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. It looks like we're all part of the family at the very least. I wouldn't go so far as the time travel stuff. I'm not 100% convinced that tout time works, but I do subscribe to the idea that reptilians, mantids, these humanoid, you can find all these things on earth. Sure. You can find all their ancestors or whatever on earth, right? So it makes me think that like this is some cosmic zoo that we're all sharing DNA on these other planets shifting them around. I agree. And it's also I'm fascinated as you know with ancient megalithic ruins. And to me, it's just completely absurd to say that humanity built the pyramids. I do think that the pyramids are a hell of a lot older. I think it was a prior civilization. How far would you estimate like 20, 30,000 years back or further? The experts that I've engaged with, I wouldn't speak for myself, but the experts that I've engaged with say anything between 10 to 100,000 plus years. Wow. And certainly it's way back to at least the time of the younger dryus when there was flooding because we know that the last time there was water around the sphinx and there is evidence of water around the sphinx. 26,000 years ago or something. 12 and 1/2,000. Yeah. Yeah. And then there's like this erosion at the base of the sphinx that, yeah, I saw it too. That's incredible. Nobody explains that. And I don't like the way that Egyptian archaeology is dominated by Zahihawas, Dr Zahihawas, and the way he's controlled the narrative with archaeologists. And I've spoken to archaeologists who've told me that they've been told flatly by Hawas that they're not to release certain reports of the otherwise they won't be given access to certain sites, which is appalling. And I do think to make the point that, you know, there is evidence of prior civilizations and I don't think it's at all unlikely, frankly, as impossible as this may sound. When you look at the rock heart on the walls in rocks and Utah and in Australia, you're looking at beings that are most certainly not human and dare I say. Some of them look mentored, insectoid, is it possible that the insects became the dominant apex species and developed, evolved to have intelligence? And is it possible that they went off planet and maybe they're the mantids? I've got no idea, but I don't rule that out now because one of the things I'm fascinated by is evolutionary science. When you squeeze an evolutionary scientist, there's a guy I interviewed probably 35 years ago called Professor Michael Denton and he's an evolutionary scientist who evolutionary biologist who has challenged the idea that the theory of evolution is anything more than a hypothesis. And he doesn't think you can adequately explain the rate of development, for example, of the human forbrain, which essentially turned us from primitive hominids into advanced, technologically clever beings. You can't explain that with just simple mutations. The levels of mutation and the time involved can't be explained and there aren't also the cross species that you've transitioned species, the fossils for those transition species that you would expect to find. So I do think interference. I think there's been interference. And I speculate there, I don't know for sure, but did something give us a cosmic shove? Yeah. Yeah. I would tend to agree with that. And I think that if we extrapolate on our own sort of projections as to what we're trying to do, we're trying to become the space fairing civilization that exists on an interplanetary basis, we're trying to go to Mars, we're trying to exit the solar system, exit the galaxy potentially or whatever it is. If you were capable of doing that bouncing around the universe, it will, you know, you wouldn't stop it just one planet either. It makes no sense to me that seems to be like an ego issue with a lot of people that think that we're special. And although we might be, I don't think that we're necessarily unique. Absolutely. I think if you were a very intelligent species, you would have done the same thing you've done here to a trillion planets if you had the capability to preserve that flame of consciousness. And, and, you know, hopefully also probably run tests like if we go to these other, if we do any tests on another planet, we're not sending a probe there to just take soil samples and leave. We're doing a thousand tests. Sure. So, you know, there might be a thousand different things happening here that they're taking notes on that they've shifted a little bit from planet B over here. And that doesn't make us not special. Absolutely. But it does put us into a broader sort of perspective with these other things. And again, I'm not afraid to admit I'm not the apex. I think some people might be afraid of that. I think most certainly we are not. Yeah, most certainly we are not and not even close. All right. Okay. This one was going to, this one was going to come up. Patient meaning asks after all your conversations in confidence, do you believe something is coming in 2027 again? That's an inquiry about my belief. It's not my inquiry about knowledge. Yes. I'm in no position to say that I know something. There are people who have speculated to me, people who purportedly have inside knowledge, who may or may not be right, who have said that something is happening in 2027. Other people have said 2034. Other people have admitted to me they really have no bloody idea, but they do think something is coming. Do any of those people have been on this podcast? Yes. Okay. All right. That's interesting. What do you make of that? Do you think that that could be some type of sirep? Do you think that the people who tell you that could have been sireped as well? It could be and I think what it might be is an attempt by the pro disclosure people to inject some urgency into the debate about whether or not there should or shouldn't be disclosure. I see. What I'm told is that there's a higher degree of uncertainty about what it is that is speculated to be coming than people acknowledge. Okay. Also, I know the inevitable question is what do you know is coming? I don't know anything. People speculate that there's natural disasters, comets, some kind of catastrophe. I've got no idea. I don't even know if it's this sort of idea of this giant craft coming. We had that, whatever that three IA atlas, we had a Muammua, all of these interstellar objects entering our solar system. Have you been told by these people in confidence what this might be or are they also uncertain? They're just like something Simon. I've heard so many contradictory accounts. All I know is people murmur and mumble, that something's on the horizon. They've been doing that for a long time now. I just wonder whether it's just pentagon tittle-tattled. I really do. I feel mongering. No, not fear mongering, just tittle-tattled. I see. I mean, believe it or not, intelligence people spooks. They gossip just as much as we do. They love gossip and spies gossip. They really do. They love gossip. I think there's a lot of that behind what we're talking about here. We've lived through a bunch of these disasters, by the way. Right, it's UK, 2012, 2021. I think we're entitled to be skeptical, but I also don't think we should be complacent. Also, I mean, to be honest with you, the world does need a reset right now. Frankly, I'm not talking about a catastrophe, but I do think humanity's heading into a very dangerous place. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was a nuclear war. I mean, we are closer to nuclear apocalypse than at any other time in our history. And the world is so blasé about that. When I was an 18-year-old punk, I genuinely thought while I was at university, there really wasn't much point in finishing my studies because I knew we were going to die in a thermonuclear war. There was this movie called The Day After, which presented this incredibly grim idea of what was going to happen when war broke out. And it seemed inevitable that war was going to happen. Thankfully, we survived that one. But now people don't realise this. The Doomsday Clock, which is presented by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, is closer now than at any other time in our history, including the Cuban Missile Crisis. They think right now is more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis when we came to the brink of nuclear war. So I don't think we need a natural catastrophe, be it a comet or a pole reversal or whatever it is that they're talking about. Maybe it's alien spaceships arriving and shitting us all up. We are primitive apes, warlike apes. We are capable of destroying ourselves. And I think, frankly, that's the bigger thing that we should be considered about. Yep. Good point. And one point that I like to make when bringing up the topic of nuclear disasters is that, okay, the one thing that advanced technology the most was war, right? This obviously is the reality that we live in. We go to war. We create amazing technology. I'd be a fool to think that we've come a long way in every other aspect of technology except killing. And so I have to assume that whatever we have now, if we're rock and iPhones in our pockets, makes the nukes look like toys. And have you noticed that Trump keeps on dropping these hints? Yes, the most despobulatory. Yeah. I mean, most recently we've been as well. He talked about this discombobulator. And clearly it's some kind of acoustic device that completely incapacitated the Cuban soldiers who were defending matured. Bleeding and they were just that, yeah. He has also, and so has Putin, spoken specifically about some kind of superweapon. Both sides have boasted publicly about a weapon that you couldn't even dream of. And that's what I fear more than nuclear war. I feel like there's something that might be able to tear a hole in the fabric of every single technology. Exactly. Yeah. Well, terrifying. All right, moving on. I think we got one or two more here. Oh, love this question. It's a really good question by TH Perry. - Great way of keeping the question short to make sure it fits onto your screen. - 130 characters, including your name. - G.H. Barry, is there a piece of information you wish you were never told? - Yeah, yeah there is. - Can you share that? - I can't tell you the information, but I can tell you what it is. - Okay. - I was given the names of, and it wasn't Jake. - And you wish you had never received that information because it obviously puts you in danger? - Yeah, I was worried for my family. I was genuinely freaked out that I knew something that was a disgusting secret. I mean, somebody had ordered a hit. And I took steps to make sure that if anything did happen to me, it would become public. And by the way, so did Jake. - Understood. Great question, Perry. Hope that satisfies you. Last one here. I think this is from Harrah if I'm not mistaken. Yes, okay. An easy question to answer. A nice one to leave us with here. Thank you, Harrah, for this question. - I like those questions. (laughing) - Would you rather interview a reptilian, a Nordic or a Gray, and I'll throw a mantis up there? - Well, probably the Nordics are really cute. They're gorgeous. - I have to admit, I'm tempted to say a reptilian. - Ooh, and the reason why is because I talk to a lot of experiences, people who purport to have had contact with beings. And the reptilians seem to have a sense humor. (laughing) - You think they'd be better to share a paintwear? - Yeah. I mean, they sound like interesting guys and girls. So yeah, I think the reptilians. And it's interesting because humans don't realize, I mean, I read Arthur Kursler when I was a boy and he wrote a book. He was a German philosopher and he wrote a book about how there's essentially a fault built into the human being that we are essentially a reptilian brain and a more advanced hominid brain, a four brain that's been built onto the front of that reptilian brain and neocortex. And he argued, he theorized that there's this incompatibility between that old reptilian brain, which is very impulsive and emotional and this newer human. - That's so interesting. - And I remember reading this as a kid and thinking, wow, that's a really cool idea and then going reading the biology about it and the fact that yeah, we do. We've got a relic of our reptilian ancestors in our body. - I've always struggled with this idea of the dichotomy of the two beings that live within us. And one of them on one hand is this beautiful, empathetic sort of intelligence with foresight and just yeah, empathy and all of this beautiful knowledge and this other side of us is just the complete opposite. This acting on instinct, it likes sex, it likes decadence, it likes greed, it feels guilty. It has all these like, it wants to kill, it wants to harm. Let's be honest about it. That reptilian side is a lot more interesting. (laughing) - They sound more fun, they really do. I don't like the evil side, but they sound fascinating. - But there is a nature where they meet and you go, man, we are really two species. On one hand, we'll give into these impulses and then with the same stroke, we'll punish ourselves for having them. - Absolutely. - And it's like, wait, that's part of us too. We're like, oh, you shouldn't touch that. You know, you're like, oh, but I want to touch that. Okay, Will Ross, you've been obviously a gentleman, a scholar, I thank you so much for coming here, but more importantly, I want to thank you for everything you do and I want to thank you for being here on this planet and sharing with us your accumulated wealth of knowledge, your incredible work ethic and your empathy and understanding towards all, not just the UEP stuff, but all the wars that humans are fighting within us and without us. - Thank you so much to you and your audience. It's been fun being on Area 52. I now know what happens behind the scenes. It's great. - Thank you, Russ. (upbeat music) (upbeat music)