UAP Unidentified Alien Podcast - UAP EP 225 Jordan Flowers part 2 - Taking the Steps to Disclosure

Episode Date: August 28, 2026

Executive Director of the Disclosure Foundation, Jordan Flowers, returns for part two of his conversation with Stephen Diener as they break down the real life steps that are currently taking place, or should be taking place towards disclosure. Plus, Jordan reveals a game changing move that might bring down the whole house of cards. All of that and so much more in this episode...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Yes, here we go. Welcome in to episode 225 of UAP. Stephen Dean are back with you here, as always, on the Unidentified Alien podcast. And we are finishing off our conversation today with the great Jordan Flowers. Really smart dude, really, really plugged into the behind the scenes, conversations, the inner workings of disclosure, if you will. And I can say that because, as you heard in part one, I've been part of that with him. I understand how deep he is into this when it comes to the inner workings of disclosure. So that said, we do get into the rest of this conversation today.

And we cover a lot of ground. This is a, I think what you'll find to be a results-driven conversation. There's not a lot of, you know, like abstract talk of different stories and different tales. and obviously those things certainly have a place within UAP, of course. That's probably the stuff that I love the most, if I'm being honest, when I get to talk about all those different things. It's how UAP started to begin with. But when we get to have these conversations,

these are the ones, too, that are really, really important to the efforts towards disclosure because that's exactly what this was here today to finish off this part two with Jordan Flowers. Again, just the nuts and bolts, really, of disclosure. We get into the weeds. We talk about the real issues facing disclosure, things like subpoenas, you know, towards heads of industry or anybody else who may be hiding secrets. He mentions John Kozlowski. You'll hear that name because I ask him, you know, is that something that you think Congress should look into? The task force there, should they look into, you know, issuing different subpoenas to people?

to have them come in and testify in front of Congress. So that was a really interesting part of the conversation because you'll hear his answer and how that goes. And I thought it was a lot of great points and what he had to say when we get to that part of the conversation. But John Kozlowski, just in case you were like, hey, I think I know that name yet. He was the former head of Arrow.

So he brings him up at one point about, you know, maybe somebody that he thinks should take the stand at some point to talk about these things of what he knew or knows about how things were done. You know, maybe how secrets have been kept hidden, things of that nature. Should there be special committees? What's the political timing of all this? What about amnesty? What about immunity?

These are all things that we get into, as well as the confusion surrounding the NDA order that came out from the president's, I don't know, three or four weeks ago. What was that? And what did it mean in real life terms? There was a lot of confusion surrounding that as far as who could say what in public. So we really break that down as well. And I thought that was another important point to get out for people because even I was confused going into this. It was like, well, you know, can so-and-so come out and just say everything they know?

Not exactly. So we have the answers on that. But so much more that we get into and a really, really great reveal from Jordan that I was not expecting here at the end of the conversation about what he and his team at the Disclosure Foundation and like an all-star team of volunteers, wait until you hear who he's working with behind the scenes to try to get these records out from the federally funded research and development centers, the FFRDCs as they have become to be known here, one of the, you know, the hot new terms in uphology, how they're going after these records.

how they might actually be able to attain them. They found a loophole. I don't want to get too much away. So we get into all of that really, really good stuff here to finish off the conversation. We start with the Dr. Phil interview that he had with David Grush. We picked that part a little bit and then we get into all the other things I just mentioned. So sit back, take this one in. Really, really important stuff here on this part two with Jordan Flowers on UAP.

Right now. Enjoy. But I do want to bring up the Dr. Phil interview as well, Jordan, with David Grush. We mentioned it earlier. And I just wanted to get your take on it overall. I know this, you know, it's kind of been beat with a stick at this point by all the analysts and everybody who covers this subject. But we haven't spoken about together.

So I want to talk about it with you. And that is, you know, a lot of the things that he said, I mentioned earlier, I thought it was the most revealing interview I've seen with David Grush talking about, you know, possibly, you know, 20 to 25 different craft recovered, the biologics that have been recovered. the communication. I've never heard him say that before. The direct communication with, you know, extraterrestrial beings. Dr. Phil seems shocked by a lot of things that he was saying.

There's a lot of big implications in that interview. So when that came out and you got to study some of those answers, what were your takeaways from that? And how do you think what he said in that interview kind of helps, we're talking about moving the ball forward? How do you think that helps to move the ball forward from here too? Generally, I think these appeals directly to the president. We live in a time when that actually works.

That's actually impactful. I think that hasn't really existed before we have seen demonstrations of presidential will in this topic and transparency for this topic that we really haven't seen before, possibly ever, but certainly I don't think in modern times. And so I've been delighted to see these personal appeals to the president, the series of videos produced by, I believe it was James Fox and Leslie Kane, and that includes not just Dave Crush, but also Jeff Nugetelli and Matt Brown and Dylan Borland as well. Those are really impactful. Those have the potential to move the needle. Direct appeals to the president have been. have been working and I think they can continue to to work. The president seems to see political capital in this and to keep going after it, which I think is good for for transparency.

With respect to Dave's comments specifically, I'm delighted that he, for me, I'm just delighted that he seems to feel empowered at this point to say those things and to have those conversations. I mean, Dave has is extremely buttoned up on, you know, his fact set, extremely careful about what he says and what he doesn't say. And, you know, while there is the question of, okay, you've seen this thing. So like, you know, the public clamoring to say, well, we'll show us, you know, show us what you have, show us the evidence. you know, I would feel confident that Grush would have no problem showing that evidence to the president if the president were to hear that appeal, right? Yes.

But I think just for me, it's, I am really glad to see that he feels empowered to, like you were saying, to really push the envelope with some of his comments. And, you know, it serves another function of signal. to, you know, others who may be listening about what's out there so that, you know, the disclosures can either that information can come from them or it can come from Dave, if it exists, of course. Yeah. So I think that's a helpful like secondary function with that.

Yeah. Yeah. It was, it was fascinating to hear those different points and to and to your point about the videos that have come out recently with all the names you mentioned, you know, in connection with James Fox and Leslie Kane, it was, I felt a big moment for those things to come out because it feels like those appeals directly to the president don't fall on deaf ears.

And, you know, this administration and the people around the president, it seems like they want to be crowd pleasers on this subject. And so what I'm hoping personally is that, you know, it didn't fall on deaf ears. And they did get a lot of traction when those videos came out. So kudos to james fox and leslie kane i believe 42 west was the uh production team that helped put that together they were they were fantastic i know we got to meet them back at the june press conference yeah yeah it was good to meet that team and yeah um you know i am grateful that

you know james and leslie trusted us enough to basically ask for our some of our advice on on the messaging and uh what was happening there um i'm glad we could uh help from, you know, both a legal perspective and just to provide some initial feelback and be in a position of trust there, because I do think that the effort is significant. We need, those like, those campaigns matter, right? You know, if there's, but they're also expensive. And, man, if I won the lottery, I would absolutely have 42 West on retainer and would just be, you know, cranking as much out like that as we can.

It was great and it it has the potential to get noticed and and move the needle. I think so. And Eric Burleson was part of that video as well of course too. But these direct appeals, you know, I think they play hand in hand. Even Eric Davis recently, I believe it was a News Nation

interview off the top of my head where he said, look, you know, again, I know where these things are. The craft, the bodies, I know where they are. these facilities where they're stored at, they're classified, so I can't say it. But even he made a direct appeal through that interview as he's had before with different interviews. If I have my NDAs revoked, I have some type of protection, then I'm happy to say everything.

And I know that's what that direct appeal was as well from Jeff Nusatelli and Matthew Brown and Dylan Borland and everybody who is in that video. Let us say what we need to say. And so if that moment comes, Jordan, I mean, what do you think happens from there? Because there's been a lot of, you know, the naysayers. Again, of course, no negativity on social media ever. And when you have that negativity from people, they come out and they say, hey, look, you know, this new measure where the NDAs, you know, you can say what you want to say now.

So come on, big talkers. Come on and say something. And that really isn't the case when it comes to that measure that came out, to the order that the president signs. So can you differentiate? What do you mean when you say it wasn't the case? So that order that came out, I think it was a couple weeks ago when the president came out, the news came out that

he had signed this order saying that people with NDAs when it came to this subject could come out and talk about it. So then there was kind of a confusion on that of like, well, what can we say?

Can we say everything? But that's still not the case because now we have these videos out. with the names that we mentioned, hey, this direct appeal, let us come out and say our piece. So it's a little confusing. So can we differentiate between the two? It's tough to,

now that we have so many players in the game and so many different entities, it's becoming a bit of a crowded field, sort of crowded on the pitch and being able to differentiate, you know, which entities have, which, you know, what's their mandate, what's their mission, et cetera.

For example, you know, we, okay, so we've got Aero, we've got Pursue. We now also have the UAP Science Advisory Council that reportedly works up, reports up to the UAP governance board, which is some sort of interagency task force. I think I'm going to ask like one of the AIs to like listen to this and create like a diagram or something. Yes, please. Send it to me when you have it, please, yes. So we've got that. That's like an interagency thing, this UAP governance board, apparently.

Unclear who sits at the top where the buck stops there. And then also reporting recently from, I believe, Chris Sharp and potentially others that, like, the UAP Scientific Advisory Council is not the only, or committee is not the only committee, that there are many different committees, you know, that exist underneath this sort of governance board. That's right. What are those committees? Who's on them? You know, what's the content?

What's the goal? What's the mandate? Having some clarity around that would certainly be helpful. The playing field is getting cluttered, but at least there's like more activity happening. I personally have found that like the DLA Piper client alert that was written and sent around is perhaps the most. clear and effective piece of writing that I've seen on the current state of this, what the structure is, what the statutory requirements are, how the NDA guidance released by Aaron Lucas at the Office of the Director for National Intelligence, how that guidance relates back to,

you know, and there's this, that guidance was issued by result of this like, presidential national security memo that was, that was written, right? That's, that's apparently classified. But the reason that that, that the guidance was written is because the memo is classified. So, you know, they're saying, okay, this memo was written. No one can see the memo, but we're going to write guidance. So we avoid this Kafkaesque scenario of like, you know, the memo talking about how NDA people with NDAs can go have conversation.

People can't even read the thing that tells them that they can go talk to other people. So great. Now we have some guidance. That guidance being directed specifically towards members of the intelligence community being a little bit less clear on contractors, third parties, et cetera. And that guidance being more, being tighter, more constrained than what's already. part of the statute. So I'll say again, and maybe you could, you know, I'd certainly appreciate if you link to that like DLA Piper client alert, because it lays this out in like a crystal

clear, you know, fashion that's I think maybe five pages long, ish. And it's effectively sourced back towards the laws that that already exist. So I think reading that document, would be extremely helpful. And as I'm thinking of it now, I think we need to like, I need to take that document and just try and like make it digestible in like social media some way, just so like the core takeaways there can really be internalized because fewer people watch or read like, you know, policy documents like this than, you know, whatever, consume videos and all that.

So make it easier for folks to understand. Yeah, and it is worth it, right, to have that information out there for sure because, again, there was like this misconception, I think, when that directive first came out that, okay, well, Eric Davis, you said, you'll say everything. Well, that wasn't really, you know, what was being done here. It kind of allowed for you to say different things, maybe more behind the scenes than doing a social media video. And then you can, you know, say XYC, but still not reveal it publicly. It's very, it's very convoluted versus what's being asked for. The closure of what, to whom. Right.

This was never contemplated to be a, oh, you know, this, I'm saying the presidential memo, and I'm not saying this is good or bad. I'm just saying this guidance was never contemplated to be a full release from NDAs so that, you know, you could tell the public, like, everything that might include, like, sensitive national security information. Exactly, right. It was intended to clarify that people with these NDAs could go to, go to. talk to Arrow and if you don't trust Arrow, then you could go talk to pursue.

So I'm glad that they're issuing this guidance. My understanding is that they will be clarifying the process even further, potentially with another memo like this to help understand exactly how to like operationalize. For anyone that really wants to come forward, like here are the, here are the steps. to do so. And this is also germane to Representative Burleson's text. He tweeted that he is, you know, sort of been tagged as the person who can help facilitate anyone that comes forward with with that information. There already were protections for people to come forward with NDAs, but I view this as more of a process.

clarification at the end of the day, which I think really is important for people to know exactly how not only that they can come forward, but like a little bit more precisely, like how they should come forward. Yeah, I think that's the best way to put it. And you're talking about the statement from Eric Burleson. I do have that up in front of me, actually. So I can read a little bit of it now just for clarification purposes. He wrote it was a, you know, official letterhead from his office saying the office of the Director of National Intelligence's preliminary guidance for waiving UAP-related NDAs is opening up important opportunity for individuals with relevant information to come forward.

And then he goes on to say just kind of summarizing, we've launched the new whistleblower form to make it easier to contact my office and get the assistance that you need. So he mentions, you know, the process, the guidance. So I think that's kind of what people need to take away from this is this isn't a sweeping order that says it's a free for all go baby go and say what you need to say. This is a it's a process and there's guidance on it. So that this is for you know, it's for disclosure to the executive branch, right? Right. Like Arrow and pursue in particular, which is great.

And this is different from making protected disclosures to Congress. So, you know, our organization wrote, you know, it's policy brief number four for us. We spilled a lot of ink with a lot of, like, you know, actual legal references discussing how anyone can go to Congress and make a protected disclosure and that there is no, no one has ever, you know, been. prosecuted, much less indicted and convicted for making a protected disclosure to Congress. And that would include an NDA that someone has. Anyone with an NDA can go right now, make a protected, when they walk in the door in a protected environment with a member of Congress, they can say whatever they want to say and make a protected disclosure.

Now, of course, then people get up in arms about like, oh, you don't understand. people put their lives at risk, administrative terrorism. Yes, I do understand that. Like that we're making, we're trying to disaggregate the problem there and say, are there legal consequences, criminal, civil, are there potential repercussions from administrative terrorism? And are there potential threats to like physical safety? Really addressing like the first two buckets and the answer is no, there is not. like a no one has ever gone to prison for making those disclosures. And based on the data, yes, you should, like, people have, you know, suffered administrative

terrorism, revocation of security clearances, et cetera. I was hesitate to even bring this up because, you know, that policy brief was written a long time ago and we've had such positive updates with the kind of NDA discussion recently. It's, you know, again, it's almost more like a marketing exercise because what's currently in statute is already, already allows that to come forward. There are some incremental things, some interesting things

like the specifically calling out NDAs that prevent the disclosure to the president, which that was an interesting feels like that was added on purpose. Yeah, that's pretty interesting. To say the least.

So, you know, there's like, there's disclosure of what, you know, disclosure from whom to whom and all of those things matter whether it's you know disclosure from people in the intelligence community people from the government former government contractors etc you know that list of the who and then the list of the how and then the list of the the disclosure of what the good news is that there continues to be more and more ways to actually do this

and hopefully more clarity coming about that process from the people running the pursue initiative. Yeah. And obviously there's a lot that goes into it, which is why there's a lot of work going on behind the scenes, in addition to what we're hearing, you know, front facing. Just a couple more things, Jordan, because I know your time is just about up. But I am curious, you know, the word subpoena has come up a couple of times in the past when it comes to trying to get people on the stand. even Eric Burleson mentioned in one of his recent tweets that they might have another hearing soon based off of some of these things that are going on that we're talking about here today. Do you think it would be would it be who because again talk about a lot that goes into something, a lot goes into this, would it behoove Congress to subpoena government contractors,

meaning heads of industry, Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, Mider, you know, these, these private companies that allegedly work behind the scenes to, as people have said, reverse engineer some of this technology that has been brought down. Is that something, is that a path? Do you think they would even try to go down? And do you think they should go down? It's certainly a tool at their disposal. But, you know, there's, you know, let's let's back up a little bit.

So there's the discussion of hearings, right? Most of the hearings so far have been, you know, people coming willfully, right? So could you have people coming willfully to discuss certain of these things? Personally, I really hope that we can have a public hearing that's really science-based. So getting our, you know, the best PhDs. And maybe the Scientific Advisory Committee is going to sort of serve this function. I would really like there to be a purely science-focused hearing on the science of UAP from some of our best thinkers on the subject.

And hopefully, you know, people, you know, certainly people that have expertise in this, but hopefully also people from outside of, you know, who are more like independent voices. I would love to see that. So, you know, at a PhD level, you know, to talk. talking about this and the reality and what they're seeing there. I think that would drive home a lot of the like this sort of like intellectual and academic seriousness that underlies the topic and be a bad day for some of the, you know, incredulous and bad faith debunkers out there.

So I'd like to see that. I almost feel like it's like I would like to see this and I also feel like it's, I would like to see this and I also feel like it's almost a moral imperative. John Kozlowski needs to sit down and be questioned in public about whether he knew about this UAP luring operation. Like, I feel really, really strongly about that and will certainly be advocating for that or something similar to that happening on Capitol Hill. Maybe that conversation happens in private first and then in public. I don't know, but there has to be accountability for some of these claims that are being made.

And the kabuki theater of this happening versus like the sort of message of incredulity coming from the office that's purportedly responsible for. getting to the bottom of the UAP topic. Right. Moving to the discussion of subpoenas, you know, one of our primary jobs at the Disclosure Foundation is really trying to push for Congress and others in government to use all the tools at their disposal. So, you know, we have the committee on the declassification of federal secrets.

That's where a lot of the folks pushing for transparency on the UAP subject have come from. So one of the tools could be a special committee, you know, kind of the church pipe committee style investigations. I think that would be a great step. A special committee would have subpoena power. One of the current issues with respect to slinging out subpoenas is my understanding is that this committee or the task force on the declassification of federal secrets like doesn't have its own. subpoena power. So they have to appeal to leadership like Comer in order to get subpoenas sent, right? Now, they may have that, and I think Representative Luna has described in some way how there's some backing there from leadership to pursue subpoenas. They're not a panacea either.

So there's a few structural things that are difficult with subpoenas. One of those things is that the people you're subpoenaing can ride these things out. In the same way that there's like games you can play, you know, in the court system and with the law, there are games that you can play with subpoenas. And one of those games is, you know, salmon's in sports. It's run out the clock.

So if there's a changeover from, you know, Republicans and Democrats in the House, then that may, somebody that receives a subpoena today knows that they can just wait that out until, you know, leadership changes over. And then, you know, the prior one wouldn't be enforced. They would have to wait for a new one. And they might have an estimation that it's less likely that they would receive like a follow-on subpoena from Democrats. So there are games you can play and time is of the essence, if that's going to happen and needs to happen now.

There's also, this also ties into questions of immunity, amnesty, et cetera. Right. You know, you can, if people were to come in under subpoena, everyone sort of saw this famously recently with Fauci, right? So it took a while for him to get in when they finally did hold him an attempt, bring him in, that what did he do? He pled the fifth, right? Nobody learned anything.

So if you want to have someone actually come in and have a productive conversation like under subpoena, that could be hindered by them pleading the fifth. And then in order to obviate the legal option of pleading the fifth, you would need to then potentially grant like immunity. And then you get into the question of immunity to whom and for what. you know, there's some allegedly some pretty horrific things that have been done like for these programs. You've probably maybe don't want to provide immunity for that. You provide immunity

for specific things and that's more more time, more work, right? So, you know, it's anyone who say, oh, we should do subpoenas. It's, I'm not disagreeing that, you know, in some circumstances, yeah, I would really like to see that, but it's a, it's a facile answer and it requires strategy, planning and really setting a foundation if you want to have subpoenas be effectuated and have impact in the way that like those of us pushing for transparency and the UAP topic want them to have impact. That might have been a little bit too deep on like the legal front. But I hope it conveys like a sense that like subpoenas are not a panacea.

It's a it's a process. You know, it's like do you have the power to do so? Uh, who's, who is doing it? And then it's a process. to effectuate that. And then once it is effectuated, can you actually get the information that you want? So that's something that we try and advise about

with respect to the UAP topic in Congress as well. And, you know, it suffices to say sooner rather than later, yes, do it sooner or rather than later, like the clock is ticking, let's go. Right. Now, that's, I think you put it really well on that, which is why I asked you the question, because I knew that you would be able to really break it down like many other people can't. So I think it's an important conversation to have an important answer to hear broken down A to Z like that.

So, no, absolutely appreciate you taking the time to do that for us. I'll get you out of here on this one, Jordan, because I have to ask, of course, about the one thing that everybody keeps bringing up. When you talk about hypotheticals and you talk about more complicated than it seems, what are you hearing, if anything, on a possible presidential speech. This keeps coming up. You know, it's going to happen. It might happen. Well, maybe it's not going to happen.

And it just keeps going. We're on this carousel, it seems like, or even a continuous roller coaster of up and down on whether or not there's going to be a presidential disclosure speech. Are you hearing anything different than anybody else is on this? Like, is there a real possibility that it could happen

or that it's even being spoken about? The short answer is, I really have nothing for you on like, I don't know about the presidential speech. I do think that the sort of the elevated volume and frequency of people talking about that in those reports. I think it's interesting. I believe Chris Sharp has reported a lot of that stuff. I like Chris.

I think he has good sources. Does a speech exist? You know, I don't know. There was some, what was it? it was the, I think it was, there was a podcast recently with Robert Bigelow or Robert Brickolo, like put forward his comments to President Trump about, you know, how he should do it. And simply having it be short, sweet, concise on the walk to whatever it is, Air Force One or Marine One. Yeah.

And having it effectively be a confirmation speech and then let the cascade, the, the cascade, of questions and follow-ons come from there. You know, do I think that is the optimal speech? I don't know, but do I think that that would be a push for more transparency if it were, if it happened that way? Yeah. Like, I'd rather have that than not have it. Yeah, right.

And then, of course, you know, there's constant moving to the goalposts like in this business. And that was the, you know, the end goal. for most people for most of the time. And I'm confident if and when that moment comes, guess what? It won't be good enough. But do I think that it will be that something like that could be effective? Yes, I just, I have no insight on if it exists, if it's happening. You know, the data certainly aren't good for people that have claimed that there's going to be

a speech. Yeah. So I think making such, you know, proclamations is not a, there's no winning track record there. And so I'm certainly hesitant to speculate in addition to not knowing. No, perfectly fair. I'm glad we can get it out there. Jordan, thanks so much for doing this, man. It's always a pleasure. It's always an honor to have you on and just really kind of, you know, chop it up on this subject to try to put it out as much as we can and as much information as we can on this. I know that's exactly what you guys are trying to do at the Disclosure Foundation. Are there things that are coming up for you guys that you're working on behind the scenes that people should be aware of on the Disclosure Foundation front?

Yeah, thanks for asking. I'm really excited about this NASA Archival Review. Okay. So this is sort of taking the legislation that's in effect about how agencies need to submit their information to the National Archives as it relates to UAP. You know, we're basically saying, hey, we can make NASA's job easier in doing that like with volunteers from our organization. So, you know, that working team is headed by Mike Gold, former NASA's business. administrator on that working team are also Beatrice Villariel, Dr. Reggie Brothers, Manelli, Derek Shani, Travis Taylor, Stephen Bruill, and I'm on there as kind of the connective tissue with like the work stream and the leadership of the Disclosure Foundation.

So I'm really excited about that. Wow. Yeah. Great team. Fun, you know, fun vibe, good people. And I think the potential. to do really great work. And then I'm also excited about,

and this is a little bit like news for us is, there's a really interesting read of this sort of national archives like record production statute. And when you, you know, typically when there's records requests, they are their agency records. So that means like agency,

government agencies are required to produce information. But when you actually read the statute, it says in the statute not agency records. It says records from government-funded projects and operations. So we have a pretty incredible legal team as part of our organization and some Sharp Minds pointed this out recently. And so what does that mean? Well, it means that it's not only that if read in plain language, it means that not only should, you know, agencies like, you know, NASA or, you know, the CIA or the DIA or whatever it is provide their UAP records to the National Archive as part of its legislation, but also any government-funded initiative.

You know where government funding is right in the name. We're federally funded research and development centers. That's the one. And so there's been a lot of great work done recently on the FFRDC involved in this. I think, you know, UAP Gerber had one on MITER recently. And there's been others as well. In Lincoln Labs, right, there was a letter sent by Representative Burleson, and to Lincoln Labs for production,

preservation and production of information from Lincoln Labs. These organizations are significant players, we believe, in this constellation of government activity on UAP, and I don't think any of them are realizing and certainly no one is currently enforcing

that we think this legislation actually includes them under the purview of records production to NARA of UAP information. That's something I want to, you know, sort of talking about that for the first time here. I want to shine a bright light on that. It's huge. And we're going to try and work on a policy paper soon to shore up this argument from a legal perspective. You know, make sure we have our eyes dotted and our T's crossed on this legal read and then socialize that with partners and

Congress and then see what other potential legal and enforcement actions may be available for production of this information. And, you know, and it might not just be FFRDCs. I think, you know, as read in plain language government funded, it's going to be a tough one to argue that FFRDCs aren't involved there. But there's an even further argument that some of the programs themselves at the defense primes could be, could fall under this. So that requires a little bit more, again, that's a little bit more speculative, but I mean, that's something that we intend to put pin to paper to

over the near term and we'll be excited to sort of share our read on that. And then there's the so what of what do we, okay, you know, if everyone agrees that they are. included how do you take action to enforce it and to actually get records production there so there's um well hopefully some meat on the boat it's a little in the weeds but i'm i'm really excited about it and for those who are deep into the you know the ffrdc you know understanding the role that they played understand how material of of a production that could be no that's that's fantastic i mean with NASA, the FFRDCs. You guys are, you're digging in the right places, obviously, as you know,

so that's, yeah, that's huge stuff. And I appreciate you bringing that out here today on UAP. Obviously, Jordan, there's, you know, a ton more that we could talk about and cover. We'll have to do this again another time. I appreciate you spending so much time here more than we originally planned for. And I really appreciate you doing that here today on UAP. So hopefully we can stay in contact on some of the things we've been speaking about here today. and I'm sure we'll be talking again soon. So thanks a lot for doing this. Yeah, man, likewise.

Thanks again for having me. And I'm delighted that my children didn't blow up the interview because they've gotten really good at that recently. I know how that goes when I do some interviews at home. That and the dog as well. So yes, I know how that goes. Hiding in the basement. I know what you mean.

Trying to find a place to hide. Just do the interview. I get it, man. It's the struggles. The struggles are real. Yeah. Thanks so much, Jordan. We'll talk again soon, buddy.

Thank you. All right. Have a going, man. Bye. Just fantastic. Thank you so much to Jordan for doing that. You know, obviously the original recording of us doing this interview wasn't broken up into two parts. Of course, we sat here for well over an hour and a half just start to finish.

You know, it was a sprint of topics and of just, you know, off the top of his head, off the top of our heads coming up with these answers and these questions and just this conversation that I was happy to bring to you here today. So thank you to Jordan for doing that, for taking part in this exercise to put out these answers and to put out this information and to have a couple of reveals, right? We have the reveal in part one about how we've been working together to put out some different videos. And then we have the reveal right there from Jordan. Again, something I wasn't expecting about what they're trying to do to, you know, and what they found out. His team, the lawyer is working with the Disclosure Foundation. that, hey, wait a minute, if we're talking about going after records when it comes to groups that are

involved with government funding, well, what better way to look at a group like that than the federally funded. It's in the name, the FFRDCs, the federally funded research and development centers. And as we have come to find out, and he mentioned UAP Gerb, who has done a great job in bringing these FFRDCs to light. And of course, since then, you know, Eric Burleson and Ross Coldheart and a lot of people have gotten on to the FFRDC conversation. But I do give him credit for kind of elevating that term and kind of pointing out like, hey, they can take these federally funded centers and essentially use them as like shell companies really of, you know, here's where we can hide the technology and the research and development. My gosh, it's in the name.

So that's a great point there by Jordan to say, yeah, we're going after these. And here's how we're actually doing it. And here's why I think it's actually going to work that we're going to be able to uncover these records. So really a massive reveal there from Jordan. I'm really honored that he was able to throw that out there. And he chose to throw that out there here today on the show. So thank you to him for that and for everything that we went over.

Just again, as I said it at the start, the nuts and bolts of this conversation. How do we move things forward? what is being done to move things forward, what questions needed to be asked and what answers needed to be given in order for this conversation to continue to move forward. And I really hope, I think,

and I hope that these two parts, especially this one and part two, that we were able to have those moments and really get down to the nitty-gritty of disclosure and, you know, kind of the things that actually need to be paid attention to and the things that need to be answered, and need to be pointed out in order to really kind of, you know, make this thing continue to be what we're trying to make it be, which is get the answers, right?

Get the secrets out there. So hopefully we were able to accomplish some of that here with this conversations. And hopefully this is able to spread far and wide so a lot of people can hear the behind the scenes and what's been going on and the things that need to be answered, the things that need to be worked on when it comes to making all this happen. he mentioned something there that I just want to touch on real quick. He mentioned something called the DLA Piper clause. And essentially what that was, that's when we were talking about the confusion surrounding the NDA order that went out there, right? Hey, if you have an NDA, you can break that and talk about stuff.

Well, and as you heard, that's obviously there was more to it than that. And the DLA Piper that went out, essentially what that is, it's a notice, it's a memo that goes out. you know, in law jargon, I guess, that says, here's how this works. Here's what you can say to your clients about what they can and cannot say, the who, the what, you know, the when, the how, all those different things. And what it says is essentially what Jordan and I got to, which is, look, you can talk about certain things behind closed doors. If you had an NDA about a program you worked on, we're not saying that you can go on

to the UIP podcast to reveal everything that you know what we're saying. is, is that you can go into a meeting with Timberchett and Luna and Burleson and Moskowitz and whoever else and say, okay, this is what I worked on. And now since this order has been signed and this memo went out, this DLA Piper, this all this stuff is out there now. Now I can tell you everything. And this NDA doesn't hold me to, you know, I can break the chains of the NDA at least in a private setting with those who are able to hear it. That's what that memo meant. That's what that order meant. We're still waiting on the big moment of, hey, I'm releasing you of all of your NDAs, go out and spread the word.

Now, that's what we were referring to. And I want to touch on this before we were done here. And I really want to harp on this real quick because I think it's really important what James Fox is doing. And if you haven't seen it, that's what we were talking about. And that's how the two kind of mesh together during this conversation today. you have that order that says, okay, you can be free of your NDAs in certain settings with certain people. And then you have what James Fox is trying to do. And this is what Jordan alluded to during our talk there, which is we want to be able to say everything to everybody.

And that's the part that hasn't happened yet. And if you haven't seen it, what I'm talking about with James Fox is he, when we were at the press conference on June 9th, back in D.C. where David Grush and everybody came up, they came up to speak. Obviously, I'm assuming you remember that. It was just a couple months ago. I was there a part of that whole thing. I'm sure you remember that. And as part of that, James Fox and Leslie Kane were working with a production group called 42 West. You probably heard Jordan and I mentioned them at one point during this two-part episode. And they are an incredible marketing production group out of Los Angeles.

They put together these super professional videos. They know what they're doing is the best way and easiest way to say it. And so while we were there, they put together these videos, these one-on-one calls to action, these pleas, these direct pleas to the president. And if you haven't seen it, there's videos featuring Jeff Nusatelli, there's videos featuring Eric Burleson, there's videos featuring David Grush, Matthew Brown, so on, and Dylan Borland, so on and so forth, all these whistleblowers, all these witnesses. and congressional members who are making direct one-on-one pleas into the camera to the president saying,

release me of these NDAs, let me say what I know. We want to talk to the public. Let us have our moment to tell people what is going on and tell them everything that we know that we cannot say in public, even under oath in front of Congress, the things that we can't say, let us say them. And so those are the videos that we were talking about that are out right now, which are, I think, super important, and I really wanted to shine a light on those as well before we were done here.

So hopefully people are seeing those. Hopefully those are getting to the right people. And maybe even those around the president are seeing these direct pleas. And hopefully one day, there's a lot of hope here. I am a hopeful person. I am a glass-half-fold type of guy. I'm optimistic to a fault probably,

but I have to be because I have to believe that we are moving towards, actual results here when it comes to the push forward disclosure. And I think hopefully, again, this conversation here today, or at least in the two parts this week, helped to do that. And especially those videos that we're talking about there were James Fox with all those guys featured making these direct pleas, a lot of things being done front facing and behind the scenes to try to make these things happen.

So it's my honor to maybe, hopefully. be a part of this push that is getting results remains to be seen but we're going to continue to push it forward and that's what we're going to do in the future here on uap um thank you for listening to these and there's much more to come on uap next week i do want to get into i want to tell you something i've been working on the past few weeks that i've been trying to kind of mix in between the interviews with anthony williams and with jordan flowers and everybody that's been on lately I've been working on a series about China. It looks like it's going to be two parts, of course, you know me.

And I didn't intend it to be that way. But as I dug into the history of UFO reports and sightings and abduction experiences within Chinese culture and Chinese history, there's stuff from the past 20 years, there's stuff in the past 10 years, even five years. And there's stuff from a thousand years ago. And I started to dig into all this. I'm like, wow, there is kind of like this hidden history of UFO lore within China that you never hear about. And I've been working on that. I've been kind of compiling these stories, taking a lot of notes over the past three weeks or so.

So I think I want to try to do that next week and maybe possibly get those episodes going. So I'm working on that. And I've mentioned it a few times here. I'm cautiously optimistic that we're going to have Eric Burleson on here next week. So keep that in mind. I'll keep you updated as you know from the past. That schedule is extremely fluid, but I'm cautiously optimistic. Those conversations are happening.

We're planning for next week early on in the week. So keep that in mind and I will keep you updated on what is coming up here next on UAP. A lot going on as always. All that said, continue to follow along on social media at UA Podcast 850 to get all the updates of what's going on and just sometimes just see what's on my mind when it comes to these things. I just throw out these random thoughts. It's always fun. At UA. podcast 850.

I put those videos up there on TikTok and Instagram, YouTube. Just search UAP podcast. A lot of stuff on there. And on any of the, of course, podcast channels, if you aren't subscribed to the show, if you haven't left a five-star review, please do that. just search UAP podcast or UAP wherever you get your podcasts on any of the major streaming platforms there for podcasting. And that's about it. I guess that's about it here for today.

And of course, feel free to send messages on any of those channels through social media as well. Always appreciate the kind words that you guys send out to me. That's always great. And through email S-Dieneru-U-A-P at gmail.com. S-D-I-E-N-R-U-A-P at gmail.com. So I think that comes. all the bases here on UAP today for episode 225.

Can't wait to come back again and do this with you. Who knows what adventures will happen next? Stick around. We'll find out together. So on that note, thank you again for everything. As always, your support means the absolute world to me. So thank you. And until next time, it's Stephen Deiner here saying, be well.

Thanks so much. Talk again soon right here on UAP, The Unidentified Alien Podcast. Thank you.